Bo Terry wrote: Bo,

I understand your perspective and while I agree that we are on opposite sides of the fence here, I respect you for at least being forthright.

Perhaps what is needed here is input from someone who is well versed in the proper procedure(s) and the problems that might arise from even an inadvertant circ-u-mvention of either policy or law.

Rick

Hopefully we won't have any instances such as this to deal with in the future!

Good Luck!

See you in Cincinatti.

Bo

Bo Terry wrote: If Ron and I have anything to do with it or say about it, we won't!

Thank you.

Yes, indeed, see you in Cincinatti!

Rick

Rick, as I read the post, would you say I have a handle on this now ?

Anything can be released, "as long as it is put in a context of "hear-say and not posted in its origional form" (without the permission of the scripts origonator)

But then we have the part of moral obligation, which rarely exisits in the real world. (yet pops up every now and then)

Isn't this all kinda like the, The president of the USA has decided to do such and such. We were informed of this by a government aide who asked his name not be revealed

Kinda like a chess game it seems to me.

vthorseshoe wrote: Bruce,
If you have the facts/do***ent in hand, and only say, for example, "Mike Nolan, Executive Director of the AFA has announced his resignation effective 15Jamnuary2007", then this is not hear-say, it is fact that preserves the integrity and confidentiality of the parties concerned.

If you look at the AFA website, you will see the announcement, much as I have proposed it should have been handled when the news was first getting ready to break. No hear-say, but no incriminating revelations either.

By the way, that shoe in your avatar is the ugliest square toe shoe I have ever seen!

Rick

Rick Burten wrote:
Not to change the subject any, but the shoe looks to me like it is a workhorse shoe with a toe grab, but a square toe shoe. We use to put those on our mules when packing in the Rockys.
Mikel

beslagsmed wrote: Mikel,

I was just trying to be humorous.

Rick

Rick Burten in gray, deletia

By the way, that shoe in your avatar is the ugliest square toe shoe I have ever seen!

Looks like a draft horse work shoe or one used in pulling contests - that's a helluva big toe grab.

We don't jump weld much down here. I saw a pretty damn good farrier forging a pair of draft horse pulling shoes in a TPFA forging contest knock the grab off one of his shoes when he was doing a final bit of cleaning up just before turning it in. Since he was about out of time, he dunked his masterpiece into his water bucket to cool it off, dried it off with his sweat towel, duct taped the grab to the shoe, and turned it in.

He didn't place.

Rick,
That is a special Arab Shoe. It weighs so much it keeps the short barreled sucker from over reaching.

It can also be used for an animal that jigs a lot. About 1 hour after putting these shoe's on he/she will be so tired they will perform like an old trooper.

In reality it was a demo shoe made for me by Dallas Morgan.
One heck of a clinician.

Rick, take a moment and look at "an aging draft shoer" on general board.

Bo Terry wrote:
Have we changed anything? If we haven't and we're expecting diffrent results, there's a word for that.

Derin Foor wrote:
Speaking of dues, I would like to know what my dues are doing right now

db, if you don't want your posts removed, you'd better start signing your real name on them, at least in the Political Arena posts.

Baron

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote: WHAT I SAID: Non-members should get their info from the AFA, not individual political candidates.

WHAT RON HEARD: he sees no need to interact with you.
Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote: WHAT I SAID: I decided to run for office to support, and bring to life, the new administraion's vision for the AFA, including, but not limited to:
• redefining the AFAs purpose and service to members
• creating a clear, concise identity for the AFA within the horse industry
• growing and improving educational aspects of the AFA

WHAT RON HEARD: he pledged to work to support and advance the agenda of Mr. Ferguson.....

A FACT OF THE MATTER: RT Goodrich had the same reading comprehension problem as you Ron. I asked that he fix it, he did and apologised.
Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote: FACT: I have donated many days of my time to represent the AFA at multiple EQUINE AFFAIRE's and MANY other clinics and certifications. I have interacted with members and non-members in the best interest of the AFA. My only goal is to further the AFA.

Ron, how do you think your sarcastic posts and overall negative public campaign will make the AFA more appealing to non-members?
Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote: FACT: I have always done this in person, in magazines and on television.
Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote: AGAIN, WHAT I SAID: I decided to run for office to support, and bring to life, the new administraion's vision for the AFA, including, but not limited to:
• redefining the AFAs purpose and service to members
• creating a clear, concise identity for the AFA within the horse industry
• growing and improving educational aspects of the AFA

AGAIN, WHAT RON HEARD: he pledged to work to support and advance the agenda of Mr. Ferguson.....

Ron, does Ferguson = the entire AFA administration?

Ron, it seems as though all you want to portray is the turmoil of the last year and all of Ferguson’s faults. They may or may not be true; what is true is that the majority of AFA members voted for Ferguson. Why don’t you just come out and tell the majority that their vote was worthless. What they voted for doesn’t matter. Rick and Ron, you just keep saying the same thing over and over. You are unwilling to accept any solution except to do away with those you disagree with. How can you possibly lead the AFA this way? There will always be some one in the organization that you disagree with.

Furthermore, where have Mr Taylor and Mr Earle been? They managed to stay out of sight and off the chat boards while you and Rick continue to fuel the fires of discontent within our association.

It is true that Dave Ferguson is a friend of mine, as is Rick Burten. I have often disagreed with both men in matters concerning the AFA. Like these two gentlemen, I have many friends in the AFA. Many times we agree, many times we disagree. I have spent days upon days volunteering my time in committeee meetings and debates for the betterment of the AFA; and have always done what Andrew Elsbree thought was best for the AFA, and have always supported the decisions made by the committees I have belonged to. For example, I championed the fight against the accidental death and dismemberment policy which the BOD deciced to implement. One year after the Board’s implementation of this policy, as the Chair of the Members Benefits Committee, I renegotiated the cost of this policy. The money saved as a result of my negotiations was help to fund the hiring of the first ED, while simulatneously maintaining the accidental death and dimemberment policy benefits. The Certification Committee has taken many days of my time which I contributed gladly to support all that the committee does and to make the AFA certification program the best in the world. I failed my journeyman test 4 times. I did not cry about the standard, inaccuracy of testers or unfairness of examiners, instead, I attended clinics; I practiced and improved my skills until I was able to meet the challenge of the AFA standard. To this day, everything I do is designed to try to improve in my skill set for the purpose of passing that hoofcare knowledge on to others; AFA member or not.

I envision the AFA as an organization that represents excellence in farriery and educational opportunities for both horse owners and farriers, not the ugly dysfuncational organization you and Rick have worked so hard to portray.

Whatever the whole story is with the EC is unclear; yet what is clear is that those of you that continue to fan the flames of discord have brought the AFA to its knees. For you there is only one solution and that’s to continually discredit and remove from office those that you disagree with. You even attempt to discredit me by taking my words out of context, and then paint me as a bad person to serve the AFA because I am friends with Dave Ferguson.

The bottom line is that we are volunteers. I, like many others, have worked for years spending my own money and my own time trying to make the AFA a better place to be for all. The donation of my time and talents to the AFA is not for the advancement of any personal agenda; it is for the advancement of the next generation of AFA farriers. In giving of my time, I have found that the help I have received back has helped me grow my own talents more than I could have ever imagined. That is what the heart of the AFA is all about; Farriers helping Farriers to be better at what they do everyday...not the senseless bashing of people who donate their time to the AFA.

AndrewCJF]WHAT I SAID: Non-members should get their info from the AFA, not individual political candidates.[/quote]
Actually Andrew this is what you said: "I will be pleased to answer all AFA members questions with regard to my candidacy on the AFA website"

Then you said: "Why would non-AFA members have questions for AFA Candidates?

After which you posted: "My candidacy is about making non-members feel that the AFA is an important organization to belong to."

Seems difficult to reconcile your statements with each other. I'm confused and I'll bet others are too.
It wasn't just Ron who heard that. Several others including Ray Steele, Phil Armitage, and Ben were confounded by your statements.(http://www.horseshoes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3683&page=1, posts 9, 10,11,12)Again, I'm confused. Isn't that, in essence, what you just said?I realize that I'm not Ron, but I'm part and parcel of this whole debate, so, in answer to your question, No, Mr. Ferguson thankfully is not the entire AFA administration. But as the titular head of the AFA, his 'vision', actions and agenda, are what is perceived as the direction and plan of the AFA.When one chooses to live in a fishbowl, one must accept that one is going to be scrutinized. Something to bear in mind should you be fortunate enough to prevail in the election.Well, what actually is true is not that a majority of AFA members voted for Mr. Ferguson, but that a majority of those who chose to vote, voted for Mr. Ferguson. A small, but important and significant difference. Now, in light of the events of the past eleven months, were the electorate fully informed of what has transpired, is it your opinion/belief that Mr. Ferguson would receive a "vote of confidence" from said electorate?You draw an incorrect conclusion. Their vote was quite worthwhile. However, that was then and this is now. The situation is changed. Again I ask you, if a vote was taken today and the membership had all the facts at hand, do you believe that Mr. Ferguson would be retained in office. And to the point, would you vote to retain him in office?So? Is what I/we have said, incorrect? Is my/our position untenable? If so, why?Not true at all. Check the facts a bit more closely and you'll find that it is not about agreeing or disagreeing. It is about actions of impropriety, ethical corruption, and leadership failure.With Honesty, Integrity and Transparency. Three things that apparently have escaped the grasp of some of the current leadership.And their viewpoint will always be welcome and considered.You'll have to ask those gentlemen about their whereabouts. And, If speaking up is considered by you to be fueling the fires of discontent, then I well understand why you have stood mute during the past eleven months.I haven't worked hard at all. The current administration is doing all the heavy lifting for me. And the thing about your vision is that while it is nice and is what all of us want, the fact remains that like a thrush infection that is covered over by what appears to be healthy frog, once the frog is trimmed, the underlying rot is exposed. And that apparently healthy frog, isn't so healthy after all. But you know what? Once you expose the rot, remove it and create a stable healthy foundation, the new frog that grows in is truly healthy. So it is with the AFA.

Actually Rick, here is what I said:
AndrewCJF wrote: See it here POST #17

My prior post was in response to Ron K., where's Ron's reply? Furthermore,Rick B. wrote: I'm confused..this is not very transparent, nor honest if you know something the rest of don't.