Phil, like Jim, you are no longer worth the effort.

And, if you represent the future of the AFA, well then...............

Rick

rick I have neither the time nor the want to go back and find each and every post but if you who seems to have more time than the rest of us would like you can go too the AFJ forum and look back during the walt taylor manifesto fiasco and you will find what them, they are there and I must say they are quite transparent as transparent as you and ron.

(rick) And all things considered, have you asked yourself Why , today of all days, Mr Gillis chooses to come forward with his accusations and innuendo?

Did it ever occur to you rick that Matt is busy shoeing horses and doing things that are positive, and doesnt have time to post endelessly in chat rooms, so he took a day that should have been spent with his family too come in here and share his views? I have no do***entation of that of course its just my opinion.

Rick Burten wrote:
Mark this date, Rick has run out of words. Amazeing.

After weighing the issue for a while now, I've come to a decision:

Due to the nature and importance of the issues being discussed in the Political Arena Forum, all future posts in the Political Arena Forum must, without exception, have the full real name of the poster at the end of the post. Ya'll are welcome to continue using whatever fanciful "screen names" you want as your User Name, but in the Political Arena Forum (not just in this thread) all posts henceforth must have the full real name of the poster at the end of the post.

Any posts without full real names at the end will be removed immediately. I assume I've made this policy perfectly clear.

Baron

Rick Burten wrote:
Rick you have no clue about the character and values of the people you attack. Jim and I as members will represent the AFA as hard working farriers, professionalism, honesty and integrity as many others do.

I look forward to meeting you in VT. Meeting face to face is the best way to judge ones character. Don't worry I am a gentleman.

Good evening Mr. Burten. Mr. K.
My Christmas day attack? I simply have more time than usual. As to my membership status, #3462, I will renew in time to vote against you. My two sons and I watched one of those corny old 1970s, wire fighting Kung Foo movies this afternoon and I was laughing because I kept picturing Rick speaking words that did not appear to be coming out of his mouth. Standing proud, hands on your hips you utter a sadistic, “Ha Ha HA, So, you want to fight hey” I dodge left as your poison darts wiz past my ear. I dash straight up a tree to gain the high ground, you shake your fist in defiance, but you know you can never claim the high ground. You fight hard, even to the point of exhaustion, and yet I fend off your attacks with one hand while I casually sip tea with the other. Your technique is well known to me and dazzles only the inexperienced and naïve.
I have seen your posts over the years and you are no more than a verbal bully with limited skills! Many who read this know you and have refrained, for whatever reason, from telling you what they think of you, your demeanor or your character. Many who know Ron will wonder why you chose to stand on the shifting sands of Ronny’s questionable character. They will wonder why you tied yourself to a rock to be cast over the rails of the sinking USS Rick-n-Ron. Both you and Ron were very critical of Dave Ferguson until you saw political opportunity in the Ink and Anvil controversy. The last mile indeed! Your last mile will reveal only the corruption inspired by political ambition. Ron, good to see you decided to join in. Sorry to expose your secret deal with Mike Nolan and the E.C. but you can’t keep secrets and be transparent all at the same time pal. Ron is yellow, I mean in yellow!!
For the record I believe that Mr. Child is a gifted and talented writer and editor. I felt that loosing him 18 months ago was a loss to PFM and I feel today that his stepping back into his role as managing editor could be a great boon to PFM’s content. My personal feelings aside however, I also feel that anyone that enjoys employment by the AFA in any capacity has also by their choice to accept that employment made a choice to give up their right to try to affect the AFA via political speech. As a member I expect and in fact demand that our employees not involve themselves in the political matters of the AFA, their doing so is a slippery sloop that can only lead to more and more turmoil and damage to our association’s credibility. The conflict of interests that are caused in this area are large and dangerous. The political neutrality of the AFA’s staff, regular or contract, is something that must become an absolute
In my opinion to under line how underhanded and unethical the prior publisher and his staff behaved in this regard was I must tell you of the exchange that I had with Mr. Gillis from April through September of this year. Mr. Gillis called me to solicit a letter to the editor decrying Mr. Ferguson’s now famous behavior and calling for his resignation or ouster. He told me that he liked the way I wrote about this matter here on horseshoes.com and wanted me to write something similar and as powerful. For my part I suggested strongly that Mr. Gillis write an article on the issue and that there was already sufficient information available in the public domain to actually do a very good and relevant investigative report. I also suggested to him that he interview Rick as a part of his investigation and I know that the two of them talked about the subject. While I did in fact write a letter to the editor, I withdrew it from publication because I just did not feel it was the right thing to do. Part of what upset me was that I&A was actively working to generate dirt on Mr. Ferguson, but that they did not have the courage or principles to develop the story on their own hook.
Ron, you are a big fat liar! I wish I would have taped our conversation. While I did indeed welcome your input, and complement your writing style, I wished only to provide you a venue for you to communicate your thoughts. You withdrew your letter because you were concerned that it would “damage your candidacy”, not because it was the right thing to do. Ron I believe I sent this to you when you were fishing for information under the pretext of truth seeking back in September, however I don’t recall seeing it on the time line. I could be wrong in this regard as I shoe horses for a living, have a family, and do not spend every waking hour on the internet. I include it because it clearly shows Dave Fergusons intent from over a year ago, and I wonder why both of you decided to ignore it. Demagoguery??

---

Original Message

---

From: "Dave Ferguson" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
To: "Matthew Gillis" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: Dave Ferguson Response


> Well now Matt,
>
> This is the straw that broke the camels back! Rest assured that I have a
> multitude of choices, and an unlimited of resources to resolve this issue.
> Be forewarned that I will go to the mat on this one. We will let the
> members
> decide what is right and what is wrong in this situation.
>
> I have do***entation of your publications request.
> I have this copies of all correspondences, including the most recent from
> Scott, giving me less than 48 hours to respond to the same letter that I
> at
> the time I had STILL NOT RECEIVED!
>
> Clearly you will end up with a pile of so called slanderous letters that
> you
> will not publish!
>
> Their will be a flurry of correspondence as a result of this, and have
> peace
> knowing that it will be a result of your decision and professional ethics.
> Know that the Professional Farrier will be responsible for further member
> loss and discontent. The members deserve the truth, something that does
> not
> appear to be on your radar screen! I sincerely hope that you and your
> magazine are willing to accept the consequences. You have left me with no
> other alternative.
>
> Be sure to check my web site real sooooon!
>
> Dave Ferguson
Dave actually had months to reply but dropped the ball! Time for bed. Y’all have fun tomorrow I’ll be out of town visiting my folks in Ohio.

Rick Burten wrote: Hmmm again... :confused:

As usual, I say something thought out and provocative and suddenly, I'm not worth replying to.

So, Rick, what exactly is so bad about my being a part of the future of the AFA, and what injustices have I assailed you with that I'm no longer worth your "effort" to respond to?

I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but I know what I'm good at, and I know what I'm not, and I am passionate about practice and study as I strive for excellence in this trade. Also, it should be noted, that I am not striving for excellence because I want to be rewarded or honored for my expertise, but rather because it is my responsibility to the horses I serve to do my very best work. I cannot lie to the horse.

Also, as far as my worthiness to be the future of the AFA, I'm again uncertain as to why you would attack me there, I will not post my farrier's resume here, as it is late, and I see no need to defend myself from an antagonist such as yourself. Suffice it to say, I have gone and continue to go above and beyond to volunteer my time and commitment to my local and my national farrier associations. I also serve my profession and my community by volunteering my time in several other ways. Through all of my work, and all of my words, I do my very best to remain humble and respectful of everyone I interact with. So, again, I'm not sure why you choose to attack me when you don't know me, and all I seek is the best for this association.

One other note. When my dialogue with Ron and eventually you started, I was curious about you both as candidates, and had not made up my mind. I admit, I was skeptical of Ron because of my personal dealings with him, but I was open minded. It was not until Ron chose to attack me in a personal, untrue and uncalled for way that I determined there is a dark side to this candidate (and apparently to you by your alignment with him) that the membership at large should learn more about.

Has anyone seen a corrolation of the postings on this site by both sides, with the middle east ?

Neither side is willing to say lets work this out together. (each side profess to be willing but neither show up at the table at the same time.)

Each side has to get their hit in last so as to show their superiority.

Little factions of terrorists keep irritating the masses in order to keep the issues confused and the path disrupted.

Little inuendo's like "cheer leaders" are a tactic used not to unite the masses but in actuality to cause seperation and continue to widen the gap.

Piece by piece the process of debating issues are being torn apart by the continuous attacks of individual characters, aimed at both sides.

Reagan's memory. A cute little remark meant to make a point.
Mr. Reagan was loosing his memory due to Alzheimers disease. NOT because he was incompetent, but because he had a debilitating disease he had no controll over.
Jim, I know you can find a better example to make a point than knocking someone who had no control over what was happening to himself.
And in my own personal opinion, Ronald Reagan sits right along side Washington, Lincoln and other notables as Ben Franklin. He was a leader of people, who worked for the betterment of all, not a few.

Why do you think other candidates are sitting back being silent ?
They are letting the rest of you assasinate yourselves and they will be there to pick up the pieces. They don't even have to put on a glove.

Forget the pettyness.
Respond in a positive manner, not a defensive one.
If everyone keeps snarling at each other it is no wonder someone gets bit.

Everyone not just the candidates involved, need to think about what you are doing. your continuosly chipping away and pretty soon you'll have something with no value.
An organization not run by democracy, but by factions who are bullies.

What I find absoluetly amazing is, Each and every candidate AND person contributing their insight on this posting, HAS the ability to lead.
EACH and everyone of you candidate or not, HAS a desire to voice an opinion and step up to the plate for the betterment of the masses/ie the AFA.
Each and EVERYONE of you has intelligence, desire, intestinal fortitude to face and confront others with what you think is right.

Why do you continue to focus on assasinating each other.
Even the folks who aren't candidates but voice an opinion here continuously assasinate each other.
Its like a bunch of warlords who can't wait to break up the pie so they can run and be in charge of their own faction.
Some of you contend to speak for the masses, or are alearting the masses to the threat of either sides intent, before and after election.
I think your speaking for yourselves or a very few minorities, because if you can't find unity here, how can you be the voices of masses anywhere else ?

Just my opinion

T.N. Trosin wrote: Tom,

Brava, Brava. You have played the part of drama queen well. I am sure by now everyone is thirsting with baited breath for all the tawdry details. So let’s set the record just a bit straighter that it is being set by you. I place the following at the bottom of all of my AFA related mail. I do this because I find the practice of forwarding private correspondences to others without permission a shabby practice at best and it is the only protection that I am afforded from that disreputable practice. And before anyone even starts down that path every email I posted in the I&A Timeline thread I asked for and received permission to post from the person that sent it to me. That some of it was forwarded and unprotected by copyright is something the original authors should think about, they did after all give unconditional control of their writing to the recipient. I know, a fine point, but it is still the point.
I post this copyright notice for all to see because your second and third statements are bovine excrement at best. Your second statement wrongly assumes that I am constricted in some manner by my own copyright. If you actually read for both comprehension and content and then engaged your brain you would realize that since I own the copyright I can do what I wish with what I write. You as a recipient however are restricted to the uses that I have granted you.

Your third statement is nothing more than over inflated hyperbole. The copyright as you will note prevents my writings from being copied and redistributed in any form whatsoever. It does not however prevent any of the recipients from discussing the contents of my email. If it did the recipients would not have been able to discuss and decide the matter in the last EC meeting would they.

As for Mr. Burten’s comments about the matter on this forum, prior to my receipt of your letter stating as the BoD Representative to the EC that it is your opinion this is not a personnel matter, I had expressed my belief to Mr. Burten that he was out of line for discussing a personnel matter in the forum. He however did not violate the above copyright by doing so.

In all of my conversations with Mr. Nolan and based upon the written responses from members of the EC it has been my impression that this is indeed a personnel matter and deserved treatment as such. While Mr. Child may be an indirect contract employee it has always been my impression that he is none the less an employee and deserving of those protections. If this is not the case then the EC should inform Mr. Nolan of that so that he is not responsible for disseminating false information. Beside it would make this conversation ever so much easier.

Your desire to create drama where none exists serves well your desire to fuel the attack, it is a shame that it does not support the facts in hand completely and accurately.

Matt Gillis wrote:

Oh OK. So when you refused to let Fergie see Duckett’s letter and respond to it in the same issue of PF, you just didn't know any better? How can that be? After all you ARE a Certified Journeyman Farrier.



I see. So it was FREE as long as I&A was calling the shots, and NOT free when the AFA decided to call the shots. You're singing a great tune, but you chose a key what appears to be outside your range. It’s going to take more than a CJF for you to win the American Idol competition with me. As a musician, I have "perfect pitch." Right now you're more than a few cents (pronounced sonts) flat.

If you're talking about the licensing thing, your memory is different than mine. Ya see, I went to that mid year meeting in Omaha AS a DETRACTOR prepared to face off with Walt & Craig. Rather than answering my questions directly, they changed the subject and tap danced around the issue. I was disappointed because I expected to hear a passionate argument from the pro-licensing camp. Instead they broke camp and ran away. I respect people what have the strength to stand up for their convictions - especially when their ideas are not popular. IMHO, people who do not stand up for their convictions are not the kind of folks I would choose as leaders. Leaders need to have a spine.

I find it interesting that the legal issue of editorial control seems to be a problem for this election and the previous one. It is especially interesting because Ron and Dave are not exactly in love with each other. Yet in spite of their political and personal differences, they both appear to think that the AFA has a right to run its own magazine. OTOH, you seem to think that the hired help should be allowed to call the shots and make editorial policy.



Ok, we'll take your word over the dokuments?



I see it all very clearly now. Some farriers will accept testimonials and conjecture as science. Sort of like accepting the Holy Scriptures as Holy, because the scriptures refer to themselves as Holy. Accepting any self referential material requires an act of FAITH.

Should we accept your "recount with due justice" as an act of faith? Will you swear on the Bible to tell the truth? Should we take your word for it that you have placed your hand on the Bible and so sworn? Maybe before you begin you could post a picture of yourself with your hand on the Bible. Then at least we will have some hard evidence that you have placed your hand on the Bible. Of course, you could use Photoshop to cut and paste two pictures together . . . you know, like Ron did with his perversion of the emails (SIC)? Maybe you should make a video with sound.

I don't much care who wins the AFA's elections for two reasons: As cµmbersome as the AFA's legislative process is, whoever wins won't be able to get a helluva lot done unless they can persuade some folks to give up power. I'm aware that, once tasted, power is harder to give up than crack cocaine, so things ain't likely to change.

The other reason is that I'm not a member of the AFA and don't plan on joining unless some major changes are implemented.

With that out of the way, I've got an opinion on the CJF requirement for presidency and some interested spectator observations:

While I don't agree with the requirement, since the CJF requirement for presidency was in place before he became a candidate, and the vice president is next in line for the presidency, it follows logically that anyone not in posession of the credential would declare his intention to take and pass the necessary tests before assuming any office for which a CJF is a requirement as assuming the office would be contrary to the bylaws. If Ron has declared this intention, I missed it and apologize; if not, it's time to do so.

On to the observations: As Rove proved in two campaigns, there ain't nothing quite as effective as dirty politics: Ad hominem works.

There ain't nothing like an election to make a grown man act like a kid.

Because every member receives an organization's official publication, it follows that the membership's opinion is influenced to a great degree by that publication. As the late Chuck Smith, who published Rodeo News usta say, "As the magazine goes, so goes the membership." Because the AFA did not have editorial control of the rag, It amazed me that the AFA took so long to sever its ties with AFJ. It took 'em a while, but they done good.

Since an editor serves at the pleasure of an organization's heirachy, when an editor has his editor hat on, his opinions reflect the organization's official position and are found on the editorial page of the official publicaton. Should his editorials fail to reflect the "official" line of the organization, in all probability, he'll be replaced; in most cases, immediately.

Unless restricted by contract or judicial ruling, when an editor's not wearing his editor hat and expresses his personal opinion on a non-official forum, that expression is protected by the First Amendment. Put another way, Danvers ain't an editor on this forum, he's just another horseshoer with an opinion. Just like me.

If the folks running for office would indulge a prospective member, I'd like to ask their respective opinions on the following questions (some have been previously answered, but I'd like to see 'em again if it's not too much trouble). Please don't bother saying something like, "Study the problem", "Form a committee", "Poll the membership," or anything equally silly. If you choose to answer, I'd like to see your opinion - not vacillation, equivocation, obfuscation, or any of the usual political ploys. There's no penalty in not answering, although some folks might take that failure as a tacit admission of something or other.

If elected, what, if anything, do you plan to do in order to further standardize the certification program?

If elected, what, if anything, do you plan to do in order to make the public aware the AFA's certification program?

If elected, what, if anything, what do you plan to do in order to offer the rank and file some form of medical/hospitalization insurance?

If elected, what, if anthing, are you going to do in order to avoid being blindsided by the specter of farrier licensing? (Please note: The formulation of a "plug-in" licensing plan does not imply advocation, it implies prophylaxis.)

If elected, what, if anything are you going to do in order to increase membership and retain those already in the fold?

If elected, will you attempt to reduce membership dues?

If elected, will you attempt to have the bylaws changed to allow electronic meetings?

As a prospective member, the answers to these questions are important to me and I'd appreciate your response. Thanks.

How journalism works in the real world:

1. Someone submits a letter to the editor, which accuses a public figure of some form of impropriety.


2. The editor contacts the public figure immediately, provides them with a copy of the letter and provides them with an opportunity to respond - SO THAT BOTH THE LETTER AND THE RESPONSE CAN BE VIEWED SIDE BY SIDE IN THE SAME ISSUE OF THE PUBLICATION.


3. When a publication witholds the contents of such a letter from the accused until AFTER it has been published, this is preceived by the public as a deliberate act of UNETHICAL journalism. The reason this is so is because the publication allows the damage to occur, and then forces the accused to respond from the standpoint of damage controll - AFTER THE FACT. Thus the questions raised go unanswered, only one side of the story is told, and the public is allowed to DIGEST one side of the story allowing it to fester for a while.


4. Usually a publisher provides the opportunity to respond, and if the response is not provided, they print a disclaimer like, "Mr. So-n-so could not be reached for comment."


What I&A did with the Duckett letter:

1. On September 24, 2005, Scott Davidson sent an email to Dave Ferguson notifying him that "I received a letter to the editor that will run in the Nov/Dec issue. This letter questions your involvement in the Pennsylvania Veterinary Practice Act."


2. I&A refused to provide Ferguson with a copy of the letter, to tell him who wrote it, or even to divulge what the letter said. All they did was tell him that it would be published and that, "...we will print your response in the next issue."

3. The NEXT ISSUE, Jan/Feb . . . very close to the end of the election. How many members would not get to see the response until AFTER the election was over?

4. Although Dave did respond to Duckett's letter, according to a letter from Mr. Gillis, "The mail was received at a date past the extended deadline we afforded you, and the letter did not maintain a professionally composed response"


5. The decision to NOT publish Ferguson’s response was a unilateral decision made by Matt Gillis or (I&A) on his (their) own without any input from AFA management. Regardless of whether or not he felt the response was “professionally composed” he assumed CENSORSHIP AUTHORITY. THIS WAS THE FIRST ACT OF CENSORSHIP IN PF MAG., somehow I&A managed to spin the results of this act into an ACCUSATION THAT THE AFA WAS PRACTICING CENSORSHIP.

During the timefreme that these events took place I was posting regularly on these boards. Mr. Gillis called me on the telephone in response to my posts and emails. He told me personally that he refused to publish Ferguson's letter in PF because HE thought it was "unprofessional." Thus I have both written and verbal confirmation, directly from the censor's mouth, of the ACT OF UNILATERAL CENSORSHIP.

To Mr. Gillis' credit he was very professional and polite and respectful with me over the phone. I believe that he "thinks" he was acting in the best interests of the AFA. Furthermore I believe that he "still thinks" he is acting in the best interest of the AFA.

IMHO, until the AFA stops thrashing and starts planning those of us who view the organization from the outside can only hope for eventual progress.

Hello Tom and everyone.

I have the PF Mag issue Nov/Dec 2005 and read the letter to the editor From Mr. Ducket in re. to Dave Ferguson.

The subject of the letter is in reply to an article in the PF mag Jul/Aug 2005 titled "Nominee for AFA President" by Dave Ferguson.

In that article Mr. Fergusen stated "I later took on the task of chairing an ad-hoc committee that removed the practice of farriery from the veterinary practice act in Pennsylvania"

Mr. Ducket goes on to say "I would like Mr. Ferguson to explain himself through your magazine, as this statement is simply not true. He may have chaired an ad-hoc committee but he or any of his colleagues certainly did not remove the practice of farriery from the veternary practice act in Pennsylvania.

Then the letter goes on with a lot of detailed facts related to the issue.

Here is my personal view on the issue. I am very greatfull that we have people out there looking at the best interest of us working farriers. Issues that could get by all of us and cause huge problems as to how we practice our trade. I think all Dave had to do is explain his statment as Ducket requested. It is clear Mr. Ducket has a vested interest in this because of his own efforts on the issue.

All I can say is thank you to hard working farrier like Ferguson, Ducket and Hemmering for going out of the way, spending time and effort to protect us hard working farriers.

Focus on the issues not personalitys, Ducket has a legitimate request, if the Penn. Veternary act is still and issue and Dave thinks it is not then this can go unchecked and have an adverse effect on all of us.

I do not see anything wrong with issues being debated and hammered out in the AFA's official publication. Seeing this gets out to all of members, unlike this forum and the AFA's forum.

Remember open honest communications. Bottom line Mr. Ducket is simply asking for an explanation and did so in a very professional and courteous manner. He did not call Dave a lyer or unethical as we do to each other on this forum.

Phil,
I think it important to note once again for the record, this PA vet practice act happened several years ago sometime in the late '90s. I have no idea what Mr.Ferguson did or didn't do about that issue but since the law passed I consider it a major failure with this states horse industry the biggest loser.

In those days the AFA could have helped. That was in the days that they had the ability to be useful. Shortly thereafter they became a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. This IRS status forbids their lobbying for or against anything legislative.

I was a little more familiar than most with this status due to other things I had been involved with. Thus, I was what you might call a lone voice crying in the wilderness in opposition to that policy decision.

Most of the guys in my state association were understandably clueless about this move but the most disturbing thing about it was the way it was done. It was rammed through. a fait accompli with no explanation or debate of any kind.

As individuals it has no bearing on me or you but collectively it was foolish to deliberately lock themselves out of policy making. I said that at the time and the events of last summer proved me right. Just because there is nothing going on politically that is any concern of our doesn't mean it will always be that way.

I've yet to hear anything negative about the 501(c)(3) deal from ANY of the current crop of candidates either.
George

George Geist wrote:

George I recommend you and others get a copy of Mr. Duckets letter in re. to this issue. It lays out all the facts and work that Mr. Ducket did to help us all of us out. We are not loan ducks, we may be clueless but honest and intellegent men like Ducket and Hemmering are out there working hard to protect the trade. At there expense I might add.

All I can say is Thank You!!!