It's only a horse
D.F. Manno
down. I'm sure it's very painful for the owners and for anyone who had anything
to do with the horse. But to the rest of us, it's not that big a deal.
So why did the local "news" programs devote so much time to the story? Four or
five minutes as the freaking lead story, then another two or three minutes
during sports. That's six to eight minutes out of a 22-minute program. Can you
name an injury to any one person that warranted a third of the next day's entire
newspaper?
Then there were the "news" people, as well as those that they interviewed, some
of who had no connection to the horse, calling it a "tragedy." No, honey, coming
home from Iraq in a box is a tragedy. Burying a child who got caught in the
crossfire between drug dealers is a tragedy. A horse breaking its ankle isn't
even close.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
Had enough? Vote Democratic!
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
James Gifford
> I don't get it. OK, it's sad that Barbaro broke his ankle and may have
> to be put down. I'm sure it's very painful for the owners and for
> anyone who had anything to do with the horse. But to the rest of us,
> it's not that big a deal.
>
> So why did the local "news" programs devote so much time to the story?
> Four or five minutes as the freaking lead story, then another two or
> three minutes during sports. That's six to eight minutes out of a
> 22-minute program. Can you name an injury to any one person that
> warranted a third of the next day's entire newspaper?
>
> Then there were the "news" people, as well as those that they
> interviewed, some of who had no connection to the horse, calling it a
> "tragedy." No, honey, coming home from Iraq in a box is a tragedy.
> Burying a child who got caught in the crossfire between drug dealers
> is a tragedy. A horse breaking its ankle isn't even close.
Hmm. I don't know that I can argue with your premise. I also don't care
to defend or even discuss what TV news did or didn't do; either you
understand that TV news is 97% pandering, worthless shit or you don't.
But as to whether a Derby-winning race horse, a Triple Crown contender,
suffering a career-ending, possibly life-ending injury in such a freakish
way is "news" and of interest to those beyond his owners and bettors...
well, if it's not to you, then either change the channel or (better yet)
turn off the goddamned babblebox.
I'm sure a thousand horses were injured and perhaps put down this week,
and the great many were only known to and the concern of those who owned
and knew them. But there's a hierarchy in such things, and a pinnacle-
champion horse is of much wider and more intense interest than a
schoolgirl's horse in Montana. Just as it's sad when a high-school
pitcher blows out his elbow, but of much wider interest when Johnny Damon
suffers a career-threatening injury. Or when Dale Earnhardt is killed in
a potentially survivable crash, vis-a-vis the thousands of people killed
that month in car crashes.
Perhaps it's that you're not an animal person, and so don't want four
legged furry things cluttering up your "important" news about people and
places of no more ultimate effect than Barbaro.
--
|=- James Gifford = FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY -=|
|=- So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? -=|
M C Hamster
"James Gifford" <n...@nitrosyncretic.kom> wrote in message
news:Xns97CA7D1FD8B7Bni...@216.168.3.44...
I don't quite know why you want to be so miserly in your sympathy with
fellow living creatures, DF. Feeling sad about Barbaro doesn't mean I can't
feel as much (or more) sadness too about the needless deaths of so many US
soldiers. I haven't used up my full allotment of sadness yet. And I'll
admit I'm a bit surprised that you feel humanoids to be so superior as to be
the only ones worthy of your commiseration. I'd expect that of a
Republican, but not you. Interesting.
I have never quite understood why a broken leg is so utterly
life-threatening for a horse as it is. From an interview with a vet in the
paper today, he was gravely worried about Barbaro for two reasons: a) that
a horse can't undergo six weeks of bed rest like we can to let the fractures
heal; and b) he said that there was a big potential problem with getting
enough blood to circulate down to the fracture site.
Regarding the first issue, it's just hard to believe that some kind of
approach could be taken to allow a horse to keep from putting weight on the
leg while it heals. Like some kind of sling or something. Or just sedating
the horse so completely that it can't stand up. I dunno, something. A cast
so strong it can fully hold the weight. A wheeled cart like Porgy used in
Porgy and Bess. I dunno. Something.
I hadn't heard the second issue raised, and it made me wonder if a horse's
leg has ever been amputated. I've seen a number of three-legged dogs and
they seemed to get along OK. Is a three-legged horse some kind of physical
impossibility (i.e., because of the way they walk they can't get along on
only three legs)?
--
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Ulo Melton
>I don't get it. OK, it's sad that Barbaro broke his ankle and may have to be put
>down. I'm sure it's very painful for the owners and for anyone who had anything
>to do with the horse. But to the rest of us, it's not that big a deal.
>
>So why did the local "news" programs devote so much time to the story? Four or
>five minutes as the freaking lead story, then another two or three minutes
>during sports. That's six to eight minutes out of a 22-minute program. Can you
>name an injury to any one person that warranted a third of the next day's entire
>newspaper?
Harry Whittington's gunshot wound. Ronald Reagan's gunshot wound.
--
Ulo Melton
http://www.sewergator.com - Your Pipeline To Adventure
"Show me a man who is not afraid of being eaten by an alligator
in a sewer, and I'll show you a fool." -Roger Ebert
Veronique
D.F. Manno wrote:
> I don't get it. OK, it's sad that Barbaro broke his ankle and may have to be put
> down. I'm sure it's very painful for the owners and for anyone who had anything
> to do with the horse. But to the rest of us, it's not that big a deal.
Speak for yourself. You sound like one of those "compassionate
conservatives" the right natters on about.
>
> So why did the local "news" programs devote so much time to the story? Four or
> five minutes as the freaking lead story, then another two or three minutes
> during sports. That's six to eight minutes out of a 22-minute program. Can you
> name an injury to any one person that warranted a third of the next day's entire
> newspaper?
I'm sure there are humans that may have warranted similar amounts of
newstime, but none of them happened to have sustained life-threatening
injuries yesterday.
>
> Then there were the "news" people, as well as those that they interviewed, some
> of who had no connection to the horse, calling it a "tragedy." No, honey, coming
> home from Iraq in a box is a tragedy. Burying a child who got caught in the
> crossfire between drug dealers is a tragedy. A horse breaking its ankle isn't
> even close.
I'd say the opposite, actually. Barbaro is a national figure, whereas a
soldier or child, while individually very important, isn't. I think
"tragedy" has been way overused to indicate terrible events that impact
very few people. Barbaro's breaking his leg has affected the hopes and
dreams of many, many people as well as changed the course an entire
racing season and potentially the course of the breed, given that a
Kentucky Derby winner (not to mention a Triple Crown winner) has a
chance to affect the thoroughbred gene pool in an extraordinary way.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Veronique
Michelle wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2006, M C Hamster wrote:
>
> > I hadn't heard the second issue raised, and it made me wonder if a horse's
> > leg has ever been amputated. I've seen a number of three-legged dogs and
> > they seemed to get along OK. Is a three-legged horse some kind of physical
> > impossibility (i.e., because of the way they walk they can't get along on
> > only three legs)?
>
> I don't think they can compensate for the loss - look at the weight of the
> body and how thin and delicate the legs are. The balance probably wouldn't
> work, or not without injuring the other legs.
>
> I'm not sure about the lack of prosthetics, but (SWAG) doesn't amputation
> happen a significant amount of time before the fitting, leaving the horse
> with no means to stand while it waits?
>
Yes, there are a (very few) cases of leg amputation in horses, with
compensating prosthetics. The issue is of course supporting the horse's
weight during healing, and whether the animal will be able to
compensate with an artificial limb without reinjuring itself.
Generally speaking, horses need all four legs to support themselves.
Often, an injury preventing weight bearing on one leg will result in
another injury on the compensating leg from the stress. Horses have to
be supported in slings, and horses are generally not very good at
tolerating long-term immobility or relative immobility.
Ulo Melton
have to be grateful for quotes like this one:
<http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horses/2006-05-21-barbaro-focus_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA>
<q>
"The Triple Crown is special because it is just so hard to win," said
Hendricks, whose Brother Derek finished fourth in each of the first two
legs. "Change it and it won't be the same."
</q>
It's tough to argue with that.
Mary
> Yes, there are a (very few) cases of leg amputation in horses, with
> compensating prosthetics. The issue is of course supporting the horse's
> weight during healing, and whether the animal will be able to
> compensate with an artificial limb without reinjuring itself.
That's what I was wondering. Thoroughbreds especially are bred to have
such fine bones and small feet that I was thinking (without any
knowledge of horses at all, just guessing) that they wouldn't be able to
support their weight on three legs. It's probably the same for deer, no?
> Generally speaking, horses need all four legs to support themselves.
> Often, an injury preventing weight bearing on one leg will result in
> another injury on the compensating leg from the stress. Horses have to
> be supported in slings, and horses are generally not very good at
> tolerating long-term immobility or relative immobility.
I think that's probably true of a lot of animals. I have a three-legged
cat, and he pounced one of the other cats the night he came home from
the veterinary hospital. Sitting still and healing just didn't cross
his teeny little feline mind.
Mary
N Jill Marsh
<davo...@speakeasy.nononanet>wrote:
>
>Regarding the first issue, it's just hard to believe that some kind of
>approach could be taken to allow a horse to keep from putting weight on the
>leg while it heals. Like some kind of sling or something. Or just sedating
>the horse so completely that it can't stand up. I dunno, something. A cast
>so strong it can fully hold the weight. A wheeled cart like Porgy used in
>Porgy and Bess. I dunno. Something.
>
>I hadn't heard the second issue raised, and it made me wonder if a horse's
>leg has ever been amputated. I've seen a number of three-legged dogs and
>they seemed to get along OK. Is a three-legged horse some kind of physical
>impossibility (i.e., because of the way they walk they can't get along on
>only three legs)?
Pretty much. An injury that takes one leg completely out of action,
or partially so for a long time will seriously mess up the horsies
other legs. I have seen footage of a horse who had a successful foot
amputation with prosthetic attachment, but I think it's extremely
uncommon and maybe not a possibility with a racehorse due to physique
and temperment.
nj"high bred"m
--
"Aha, Mr. Bond! You have arrived just in time to
witness the triumph of the trilobites, and the end
of the human race."
N Jill Marsh
>I think that's probably true of a lot of animals. I have a three-legged
>cat, and he pounced one of the other cats the night he came home from
>the veterinary hospital. Sitting still and healing just didn't cross
>his teeny little feline mind.
The Best Beloved's young cat had simultaneous bilateral femoral head
and neck ostectomies on Easter Monday. (This means that he had the
tops of both his femurs removed - he just has the long straight part
of his thigh bones left - no angled bits or hip joint.) He was
walking reasonably well within 24 hours of the surgery, and while he's
not jumping on anything (yet) he is perfectly mobile and can climb
well.
nj"the cat came back"m
M C Hamster
"Michelle" <pos...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.61.0605212103080.10561@shell1...
> On Sun, 21 May 2006, M C Hamster wrote:
>
>> life-threatening for a horse as it is. From an interview with a vet in
>> the
>> paper today, he was gravely worried about Barbaro for two reasons: a)
>> that
>> a horse can't undergo six weeks of bed rest like we can to let the
>> fractures
>> heal; and b) he said that there was a big potential problem with getting
>> enough blood to circulate down to the fracture site.
>>
>> Regarding the first issue, it's just hard to believe that some kind of
>> approach could be taken to allow a horse to keep from putting weight on
>> the
>> leg while it heals. Like some kind of sling or something. Or just
>> sedating
>> the horse so completely that it can't stand up. I dunno, something. A
>> cast
>> so strong it can fully hold the weight. A wheeled cart like Porgy used
>> in
>> Porgy and Bess. I dunno. Something.
>
> struggle. That depends on the horse and the surgeon's decision. And
> sedation for that amount of time would also be problematic. Horses that
> spend too long lying down develop other internal problems.
>
> FWIW, he'll be in a sling in a pool when he comes out of anesthesia, to
> keep him from thrashing around and injuring himself more as he come to.
> (That's what happened to Ruffian, before they used slings and pools).
>
I was wondering about Ruffian and why they couldn't save her, given her high
breeding value. This article
(http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006050426708) says this:
****
"When a horse like Ruffian breaks a leg, that horse needs to be cared for
from the moment the horse comes out of the anesthesia by hoisting the horse
up by a huge crane and lowering the horse into a pool of water while
sedated. When the horse realizes his situation, nature kicks in and the
horse will be cognizant of his injury. By keeping the horse in the pool of
water by a hoisted crane, the horse will be able to kick and move the
bandaged leg without any furthur injury to the leg. Slowly, with medication,
proper diet and plenty of vegetable/mineral oil to prevent colic, a horse
may, I said may, recover from a broken leg.
"The operation on Ruffian was successful. It was the reaction after the
operation, that caused the horse to try and stand that caused the broken leg
to be challenged. Had Ruffian been sedated and rushed to a full equine
clinic with full operating facilities and aftercare, that horse would have
had a fair chance at recovery after ninety days and after three or four
years, may have been broodmared out to Secretariat. What a progeny that
would have been. Carried by Ruffian and sired by Secretariat. the bidding
would have started at $10 million and who knows what that foal would have
accomplished."
****
I've found a few references to horses with amputations, but they seem to
involve relatively minor amputations, i.e., the very lower part of the foot,
rather than a broken leg.
Charles Bishop
>
>I was wondering about Ruffian and why they couldn't save her, given her high
>breeding value. This article
>(http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006050426708) says this:
[snip previous portion of article to get to-]
>. . .Had Ruffian been sedated and rushed to a full equine
>clinic with full operating facilities and aftercare, that horse would have
>had a fair chance at recovery after ninety days and after three or four
>years, may have been broodmared out to Secretariat. What a progeny that
>would have been. Carried by Ruffian and sired by Secretariat. the bidding
>would have started at $10 million and who knows what that foal would have
>accomplished."
How certain is this last part? That is, do two splendid horses always
yield an equal foal? I'd think not, given the quirks of genetics. It's
obviously what they are hoping for, and often get, but what percentage of
the time? I would think it isn't high else, the world would be full of
wonder horses. And, we wouldn't have accounts of no-account horses being
loved by a little girl, trained by a crusty, over-the-hill trainer going
on to win the Cup.
--
charles
N Jill Marsh
Bishop)wrote:
>[snip previous portion of article to get to-]
>
>>. . .Had Ruffian been sedated and rushed to a full equine
>>clinic with full operating facilities and aftercare, that horse would have
>>had a fair chance at recovery after ninety days and after three or four
>>years, may have been broodmared out to Secretariat. What a progeny that
>>would have been. Carried by Ruffian and sired by Secretariat. the bidding
>>would have started at $10 million and who knows what that foal would have
>>accomplished."
>
>How certain is this last part?
Completely certain. Who knows what the foal would have accomplished?
No one. Great racehorses can be indifferent breeders, and even great
breeders don't produce sure things. And great horses can be produced
by unexpected bloodlines.
A great horse like Northern Dancer (who I don't think was initially
expected to be as good as he was) became one of the most successful
sires of the century, and I think his foals still hold price records.
However in the 1980s it was still possible to come by a
Dancer-bloodlined horse for a reasonable price, I knew two people who
had them, as not all the foals came out with what was needed
nj"shorty and jazz"m
Greg Goss
>I hadn't heard the second issue raised, and it made me wonder if a horse's
>leg has ever been amputated. I've seen a number of three-legged dogs and
>they seemed to get along OK. Is a three-legged horse some kind of physical
>impossibility (i.e., because of the way they walk they can't get along on
>only three legs)?
A month or so back, I posted a link to a film clip of a two legged dog
-- one born without front legs at all. It was a fully functional
biped. Someone responded with a link to articles about a dog that
lost both back legs in an accident.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
D.F. Manno
"Veronique" <veroniq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > I don't get it. OK, it's sad that Barbaro broke his ankle and
> > may have to be put down. I'm sure it's very painful for the
> > owners and for anyone who had anything to do with the horse.
> > But to the rest of us, it's not that big a deal.
>
> Speak for yourself. You sound like one of those "compassionate
> conservatives" the right natters on about.
So that makes two people who have decided to insult me because I think the story
is being overplayed and some people are overreacting. Humpf!
M C Hamster
news:dfmanno-E9A4EF...@news.x-privat.org...
> In article <1148251963.0...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Veronique" <veroniq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> D.F. Manno wrote:
>>
>> > I don't get it. OK, it's sad that Barbaro broke his ankle and
>> > may have to be put down. I'm sure it's very painful for the
>> > owners and for anyone who had anything to do with the horse.
>> > But to the rest of us, it's not that big a deal.
>>
>> Speak for yourself. You sound like one of those "compassionate
>> conservatives" the right natters on about.
>
> So that makes two people who have decided to insult me because I think the
> story
> is being overplayed and some people are overreacting. Humpf!
>
Now it's my turn to be a bit contrite and say that, had I really seen them
devoting vast amounts of time to this story, that I might have reacted as
you did. I only saw a little bit of news on this, but what I read made me
quite sad... so it seemed wrong for you to be so cold-hearted about this,
when we know you're a caring person in general, unlike all of those
hard-hearted Republican creepbums.
Charles Bishop
>On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:38:47 GMT, ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles
>Bishop)wrote:
>
>>[snip previous portion of article to get to-]
>>
>>>. . .Had Ruffian been sedated and rushed to a full equine
>>>clinic with full operating facilities and aftercare, that horse would have
>>>had a fair chance at recovery after ninety days and after three or four
>>>years, may have been broodmared out to Secretariat. What a progeny that
>>>would have been. Carried by Ruffian and sired by Secretariat. the bidding
>>>would have started at $10 million and who knows what that foal would have
>>>accomplished."
>>
>>How certain is this last part?
>
>Completely certain. Who knows what the foal would have accomplished?
>No one. Great racehorses can be indifferent breeders, and even great
>breeders don't produce sure things. And great horses can be produced
>by unexpected bloodlines.
Sorry. English Idiom alert. I took the phrase to mean that it was certain
the foal would have done great things, not that there was doubt that it
might. Do you not read it that way?
>
>A great horse like Northern Dancer (who I don't think was initially
>expected to be as good as he was) became one of the most successful
>sires of the century, and I think his foals still hold price records.
>However in the 1980s it was still possible to come by a
>Dancer-bloodlined horse for a reasonable price, I knew two people who
>had them, as not all the foals came out with what was needed
And that was my point, kinda because it left the dam side of the equation
unnamed. Still, while choosing the parents makes the foal's chances much
better, is there a guarantee that it will be great?
>
>nj"shorty and jazz"m
charles, I beg of you, annotate these for those less educated, bishop
Charles Bishop
domm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>In article <1148251963.0...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Veronique" <veroniq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> D.F. Manno wrote:
>>
>> > I don't get it. OK, it's sad that Barbaro broke his ankle and
>> > may have to be put down. I'm sure it's very painful for the
>> > owners and for anyone who had anything to do with the horse.
>> > But to the rest of us, it's not that big a deal.
>>
>> Speak for yourself. You sound like one of those "compassionate
>> conservatives" the right natters on about.
>
>So that makes two people who have decided to insult me because I think
the story
>is being overplayed and some people are overreacting. Humpf!
And yet you are so kind to others when they disagree. There's no justice,
I tell ya.
--
charles
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
M C Hamster wrote:
>
> I don't quite know why you want to be so miserly in your sympathy with
> fellow living creatures, DF. Feeling sad about Barbaro doesn't mean I can't
> feel as much (or more) sadness too about the needless deaths of so many US
> soldiers.
>
If the deaths of Americans "needlessly" were so important to you, you'd
be in a fret about the 40,000 Americans who die each year in car
accidents. But you are not, are you?
> I haven't used up my full allotment of sadness yet. And I'll
> admit I'm a bit surprised that you feel humanoids to be so superior as to be
> the only ones worthy of your commiseration. I'd expect that of a
> Republican, but not you. Interesting.
>
Do you really think that Republicans don't care about anything but cold
Vulcan logic? (Of course I expect you also believe that it is Democrats
who believe in logic as well, Republicans being just "idiots".)
> I have never quite understood why a broken leg is so utterly
> life-threatening for a horse as it is. From an interview with a vet in the
> paper today, he was gravely worried about Barbaro for two reasons: a) that
> a horse can't undergo six weeks of bed rest like we can to let the fractures
> heal; and b) he said that there was a big potential problem with getting
> enough blood to circulate down to the fracture site.
>
If you watch the film "Dreamer" 2005 (
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0487897/ ), it's clear that the reproductive
value of a winning race horse can make these efforts worth it, even if
you coldly don't see the value in giving back to an animal that gave its
all for sport.
--
"And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty
heart, 'til the Devil whispered behind the leaves 'It's pretty, but is
it Art?'."
M C Hamster
news:ctbishop-220...@dialup-4.246.36.48.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net...
I don't know about Jill, but it seems pretty clear that the author of that
article was musing on the possibilities of what an offspring of Secretariat
and Ruffian would have been like, both on the track and on the market. He
says "who knows what that foal would have accomplished?", which is merely a
dreamy speculation. Obviously he's merely stating an opinion too about the
$10 million pricetag, and I obviously can't judge if that is a WAG, or based
on some more specific knowledge about what topflight racehorses cost. I
think it's pretty well-established that bloodlines count quite a lot in the
performance of a racehorse, though certainly it's far from a guarantee. I'm
sure that author would totally agree with this assertion.
When he says "what a progeny that would have been", that would still be true
even if it proved to ultimately be a flop on the racecourse, so I don't
think that statement implies 100% certainty that it would have performed
great on the track. It will would have been an amazing progeny, simply
given its parentage, and the pricetag for that potential would have
confirmed how amazing it was.
Veronique
The $10 million pricetag could very well have been truthy. Heaven
knows, there have been numbers of high-priced yearlings with glowing
bloodlines who sold for much and returned little (not even getting to
the track in some cases.)
As far as the potential of a Secretariat-Ruffian baby? Secretariat
didn't produce anything near his equivalent directly, although his
daughters have produced some quite good horses.
Richard R. Hershberger
D.F. Manno wrote:
> In article <1148251963.0...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Veronique" <veroniq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > D.F. Manno wrote:
> >
> > > I don't get it. OK, it's sad that Barbaro broke his ankle and
> > > may have to be put down. I'm sure it's very painful for the
> > > owners and for anyone who had anything to do with the horse.
> > > But to the rest of us, it's not that big a deal.
> >
> > Speak for yourself. You sound like one of those "compassionate
> > conservatives" the right natters on about.
>
> So that makes two people who have decided to insult me because I think the story
> is being overplayed and some people are overreacting. Humpf!
For whatever it is worth, I don't doubt that you are right about the
story being overplayed. This sort of thing is a big part of why I
rarely watch television news. It is an inferior medium for the vast
majority of stories, even when done in good faith by persons trying to
present the important issues of the day.
Richard R. Hershberger
Justin
M C Hamster wrote:
There are people who know a lot more about horses than me, but I've
been around them all my life (working, rather than recreational types)
and can say they definitely have a different way of thinking. They
think like prey animals, and they key in on things that might make them
vulnerable. Minor changes in their surroundings that we would think
are insignificant can make them nervous. The loss of mobility, which
would basically assign them the status of dead meat in the wild, has
got to be one of the most distressing things that could happen to them.
So I'm not surprised that these injuries still have bad outcomes.
I wasn't surprised at the amount of media coverage. It had all the
factors the news likes these days: a dramatic narrative, shocking
video, rich people...
--Justin
N Jill Marsh
Bishop)wrote:
>In article <dco3729gsgguc1jkq...@4ax.com>, njm...@storm.ca wrote:
>
>>Completely certain. Who knows what the foal would have accomplished?
>>No one. Great racehorses can be indifferent breeders, and even great
>>breeders don't produce sure things. And great horses can be produced
>>by unexpected bloodlines.
>
>Sorry. English Idiom alert. I took the phrase to mean that it was certain
>the foal would have done great things, not that there was doubt that it
>might. Do you not read it that way?
Yes, I do, but I'm interpreting it to mean what it should have meant,
that is, no one knows.
>And that was my point, kinda because it left the dam side of the equation
>unnamed. Still, while choosing the parents makes the foal's chances much
>better, is there a guarantee that it will be great?
None. Not with the greatest damn/sire combination in history. Not
even if that combination had previously produced a great horse. They
don't race them just for fun, you know.
>>nj"shorty and jazz"m
>
>charles, I beg of you, annotate these for those less educated, bishop
You should stop fretting about the internyms, those are the two Dancer
foals I have known.
nj"something very abtruse for charles here"m
M C Hamster
"Justin" <jnola...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148406345....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And certainly one can view it pretty directly in terms akin to classic Greek
tragedy. And it cuts across the traditional political boundaries which are
so wearying in today's rhetoric as well.
So far the reports seem pretty upbeat. I do hope that this animal can make
it.
I enjoyed your description of the psyche of horses. I've not had the
pleasure of working around them. Have you seen any horse whisperers in
your dealings with the horsey crowd? Do you think there might be something
to all that?
Bill Kinkaid
<melt...@sewergator.com> wrote:
>However one may feel about a horse getting this much news coverage, we
>have to be grateful for quotes like this one:
><http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horses/2006-05-21-barbaro-focus_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA>
><q>
>"The Triple Crown is special because it is just so hard to win," said
>Hendricks, whose Brother Derek finished fourth in each of the first two
>legs. "Change it and it won't be the same."
></q>
>
>It's tough to argue with that.
I think they should give Derek some special version of the Triple
Crown if he manages to finish fourth in all three races.
--
Bill in Vancouver
N Jill Marsh
<davo...@speakeasy.nononanet>wrote:
>I enjoyed your description of the psyche of horses. I've not had the
>pleasure of working around them. Have you seen any horse whisperers in
>your dealings with the horsey crowd? Do you think there might be something
>to all that?
There's something to a lot of it, but it's probably not the something
you think. I think most of the 'something' about horse whisperers is
that somebody wrote a book about a practice that has not only been
around a long time, it's been widely used, and instead they promoted
into some kind of Special Secret Power.
The stereotype of the freaky violent horse being "broken" into
submission as being the normal thing that is done for every single
horse is an artifact of the big screen. Well socialized horses don't
have huge problems learing to take a rider &etc, poorly socialized
horses have been trained gently since long before anyone decided to
write about Monty Roberts.
nj"either that or I come from a culture of horse whisperers and no
one's ever told them what they are"m
art...@yahoo.com
Ulo Melton wrote:
> However one may feel about a horse getting this much news coverage, we
> have to be grateful for quotes like this one:
> <http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horses/2006-05-21-barbaro-focus_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA>
> <q>
> "The Triple Crown is special because it is just so hard to win," said
> Hendricks, whose Brother Derek finished fourth in each of the first two
> legs. "Change it and it won't be the same."
> </q>
>
> It's tough to argue with that.
Hendrick's brother finished 4th? That's pretty fast for a human. Or
maybe Hendricks is a horse and a relative of Mr Ed.
Justin
M C Hamster wrote:
> So far the reports seem pretty upbeat. I do hope that this animal can make
> it.
Absolutely.
> I enjoyed your description of the psyche of horses. I've not had the
> pleasure of working around them.
I was about to quip that I haven't had the pleasure, either, it was all
work. But working with horses and cattle is easily the most
pleasurable and rewarding work I've ever done.
> Have you seen any horse whisperers in
> your dealings with the horsey crowd? Do you think there might be something
> to all that?
I've never seen that show or read the book, but my impression is that
it is tied up in some kind mystical New Agey-ness. I don't necessarily
think that it's a big mystery, it's a skill that some people have.
BUT, there is something indefinable about these abilities that I guess
could be construed as mysterious.
The American Quarter Horse "cowboy" horses I'm familiar with are pretty
easy to deal with if they've been worked with from a young age. The
tricky parts come in when they are spooked or hurt. Then there are
ways to approach them with body language and "attitude" that will not
make things worse and, if everything goes right, can actually calm them
down. My impression is that this is too subtle to really be taught.
Long experience helps a lot, but is not everything. My dad is an
excellent horseman, but he was always in awe of the way may grandpa
(his father-in-law) could get a horse to do things that everybody else
had given up on. My grandpa and his brothers had grown up with horses
as an everyday necessity of life, but neither of the brothers had a way
with horses like he did. My dad, on the other hand, is great at
working with mules, who have a totally different way of thinking, while
my grandpa never "understood" mules.
So I think a lot of it is you either have it or you don't, but I can't
really say what "it" is. Some horses and dogs have "cow sense," too,
and others even from the same litter don't have it.
I agree with N. Jill about the crazed bucking horse breaking. The
breakings I had anything to do with always involved getting a horse
thoroughly tired out before anyone got in the saddle the first few
times. As a kid I was assigned several times to lead a horse with a
very heavy and ancient "railroad" saddle around and around some sand
dunes, where the loose footing was exhausting. The guys did get
"throwed off" fairly regularly, but it wasn't dramatic like in the
movies.
--Justin
D.F. Manno
<ctbishop-220...@dialup-4.246.36.48.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net>,
ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> domm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >So that makes two people who have decided to insult me because I think
> >the story is being overplayed and some people are overreacting. Humpf!
>
> And yet you are so kind to others when they disagree. There's no justice,
> I tell ya.
That didn't come across with the mock outrage I intended.
D.F. Manno
"Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
> For whatever it is worth, I don't doubt that you are right about the
> story being overplayed. This sort of thing is a big part of why I
> rarely watch television news. It is an inferior medium for the vast
> majority of stories, even when done in good faith by persons trying to
> present the important issues of the day.
It's not just TV. Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer devoted over a third of the
front page to a big headline, big photo and story. There was a full page inside
the news section. Then in the sports section, over half the front page, two full
pages inside and part of a third were about the horse. And then there was the
separate story about the horse that actually won the race.
The Times at least gave it the play I thought it deserved: a small photo and
reefer on the front page, and the lead story in the sports section.
Then there's this item from a local blog about the next day's coverage:
"Stories in the Inquirer and Daily News on Barbaro: 5 articles, 4,612 words.
Stories in the Inquirer and Daily News on a triple homicide in Port Richmond: 2
articles, 1,559 words."
Richard R. Hershberger
D.F. Manno wrote:
> In article <1148401200.8...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>
> > For whatever it is worth, I don't doubt that you are right about the
> > story being overplayed. This sort of thing is a big part of why I
> > rarely watch television news. It is an inferior medium for the vast
> > majority of stories, even when done in good faith by persons trying to
> > present the important issues of the day.
>
> It's not just TV. Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer devoted over a third of the
> front page to a big headline, big photo and story. There was a full page inside
> the news section. Then in the sports section, over half the front page, two full
> pages inside and part of a third were about the horse. And then there was the
> separate story about the horse that actually won the race.
>
> The Times at least gave it the play I thought it deserved: a small photo and
> reefer on the front page, and the lead story in the sports section.
>
> Then there's this item from a local blog about the next day's coverage:
>
> "Stories in the Inquirer and Daily News on Barbaro: 5 articles, 4,612 words.
> Stories in the Inquirer and Daily News on a triple homicide in Port Richmond: 2
> articles, 1,559 words."
This is a nice illustration of my point about television being an
inferior medium for news. When the paper devotes more space to a story
than we care about, we can simply disregard the excess. There are
legitimate concerns about newsroom resources being diverted from other,
more important stories. But at least we don't have to waste our time
on the blather. With television news, unless we are certain that no
significant news will follow, we are stuck with the anchor drones
yammering away until they finish with the blather and move on to the
news.
Richard R. Hershberger
Charles Bishop
domm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>In article <1148401200.8...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>
>> For whatever it is worth, I don't doubt that you are right about the
>> story being overplayed. This sort of thing is a big part of why I
>> rarely watch television news. It is an inferior medium for the vast
>> majority of stories, even when done in good faith by persons trying to
>> present the important issues of the day.
>
>It's not just TV. Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer devoted over a third of the
>front page to a big headline, big photo and story. There was a full page
inside
>the news section. Then in the sports section, over half the front page,
two full
>pages inside and part of a third were about the horse. And then there was the
>separate story about the horse that actually won the race.
>
>The Times at least gave it the play I thought it deserved: a small photo and
>reefer on the front page, and the lead story in the sports section.
>
>Then there's this item from a local blog about the next day's coverage:
>
>"Stories in the Inquirer and Daily News on Barbaro: 5 articles, 4,612 words.
>Stories in the Inquirer and Daily News on a triple homicide in Port
Richmond: 2
>articles, 1,559 words."
What this determines is that you think the story is overplayed. That is,
it's getting more news space than you think is worthwhile. The editors of
the newspaper and news programs have differing views, based, they hope, on
the differing views of the readers and viewers of the programs.
There is ocassionaly a story about how people value animals more than
other people. An example is in a disaster, donations to help animals and
pets are greater than those to help the humans involved. I don't know what
this proves actually (it could be that people are "bad" and don't like
people as much as animals, or that they think people in trouble can take
care of themselves but animals need help, or something else), but do
notice the stories.
There are many stories I'd like to see on the news other than what's
there, but I'm unlikely to get what I want; and you're in line in back of
me, so until I do, you're unlikely to. We'll have to deal with it as best
we can.
charles, take a number, bishop
Justin Hiltscher
> M C Hamster wrote:
>
>> So far the reports seem pretty upbeat. I do hope that this animal can make
>> it.
>
> Absolutely.
>
>> I enjoyed your description of the psyche of horses. I've not had the
>> pleasure of working around them.
>
> I was about to quip that I haven't had the pleasure, either, it was all
> work. But working with horses and cattle is easily the most
> pleasurable and rewarding work I've ever done.
>
>> Have you seen any horse whisperers in
>> your dealings with the horsey crowd? Do you think there might be something
>> to all that?
>
> I've never seen that show or read the book, but my impression is that
> it is tied up in some kind mystical New Agey-ness. I don't necessarily
> think that it's a big mystery, it's a skill that some people have.
> BUT, there is something indefinable about these abilities that I guess
> could be construed as mysterious.
>
Think I'll chime in here. I read the book about Monty Roberts. *Quite*
different from the movie. I didn't get a sense of 'New Agey-ness' from
the book at all, and the movie isn't memorable enough to me for me to
comment. In the book, it was about Monty being opposed to his dad's way
of breaking horses by tying them with a special bridle, and having them
run it out. He went out and observed how a herd of nearby horses was
corralled by the lead mare. Being mostly quiet, the horses used body
language. If a horse misbehaved, all the lead mare needed to do was
face them head on. They would run away, and try to get out of the
direct forward (the business end of the mare :) ) As long as the mare
continued to face them, they would orbit the herd, until she relented
enough to let them run to her flanks.
He found through experimentation that horses would interpret the signals
the same if presented by a critter less than half their weight, and
standing on only two legs to boot. You face the horse head on, and
continue to point yourself at them. They'll get increasingly nervous,
and try to run so that your flank is to them. Slowly, you allow them
out, and when your done, they'll form a 'herd' of 2 with you, since you
'accepted' them.
IIRC, anyway :) Liked the book, wasn't New Agey. :)
Justin Hiltscher
--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95
N Jill Marsh
>I agree with N. Jill about the crazed bucking horse breaking. The
>breakings I had anything to do with always involved getting a horse
>thoroughly tired out before anyone got in the saddle the first few
>times. As a kid I was assigned several times to lead a horse with a
>very heavy and ancient "railroad" saddle around and around some sand
>dunes, where the loose footing was exhausting. The guys did get
>"throwed off" fairly regularly, but it wasn't dramatic like in the
>movies.
I've only ever been directly involved in one, and that was
inadvertent. My cousin told me I could come out and ride his horses,
and told me to ride This Horsey and not That Horsey, as That Horsey
was pretty big and headstrong and too much of a handful for a slip of
a girl, and that he'd make sure This Horsey was ready for me.
I went out one evening, and my cousin wasn't there, but cousin's wife
pointed out This Horsey and showed me his tack, and I put everything
on him and went out riding.
(No, I didn't get That Horsey by mistake.)
Anyway, cousin makes it home later, and asks how This Horsey is for
me, and I tell him he's fine, just a bit nervous and we're not
communicating really well, but everything's fine. Cousin says "yeah,
he was like that with me yesterday, but no surprise as that was only
the second time he'd had a saddle on and the first time he'd been
ridden, he didn't really complain with me then and I think he'll be a
really nice horse."
I ended up going off This Horsey a few minutes later, but that was an
accident, and due to inexperience on my end, and a horsefly from hell
on his.
nj'well, front end'm