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.
WHAT RON HEARD: he sees no need to interact with you.
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, WHAT I SAID: I decided to run for office to support, and bring to life, the new administraion's vision for the AFA,
AGAIN, WHAT RON HEARD: he pledged to work to support and advance the agenda of Mr. Ferguson.....
Again, I'm confused. Isn't that, in essence, what you just said?
Ron, does Ferguson = the entire AFA administration?
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.
it seems as though all you want to portray is the turmoil of the last year and all of Ferguson’s faults.
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.
what is true is that the majority of AFA members voted for Ferguson.
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?
Why don’t you just come out and tell the majority that their vote was worthless.
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?
Rick and Ron, you just keep saying the same thing over and over.
So? Is what I/we have said, incorrect? Is my/our position untenable? If so, why?
You are unwilling to accept any solution except to do away with those you disagree with.
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.
How can you possibly lead the AFA this way?
With Honesty, Integrity and Transparency. Three things that apparently have escaped the grasp of some of the current leadership.
There will always be some one in the organization that you disagree with.
And their viewpoint will always be welcome and considered.
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.
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 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.
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.
Whatever the whole story is with the EC is unclear wrote:
No sir. The shenanagans of some of the leadership of the EC, the disloyal and disruptive actions of a prominent member of the AFA acting as a vendor, and the inability of the BoD to act decisively and cohesively are what have brought the AFA to its knees. You would shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.
For you there is only one solution and that’s to continually discredit and remove from office those that you disagree with.
Not only is this disingenuous of you, it is also a logical fallacy.
That is what the heart of the AFA is all about; Farriers helping Farriers to be better at what they do everyday...
Something that has apparently been forgotten or never understood by some.
Rick