conformation critique
cindi
Jewel the infamous trailer non-loading horse. She's been at The
Wright Ranch where she was declared one of the most talented
youngsters they ever rode. I see a ton of talent when she's ridden
and when she free-works, but I don't see much of that potential in her
conformation. Can any of you tell from her conformation why she's so
talented under saddle? (She shows particular talent in the rollbacks/
turnarounds - the moving of her front end and working over her
hocks.)
http://www.allisonacres.org/aastarrynight.html
She is somewhat complex to ride - Allison does great with her, and of
course Dylan at The Wright Ranch does great with her, but she is bored
and unimpressed with the feel, timing and savvy of her owner, my
working student, and she gives her very mixed results. And now that
S. has some lingering fears after her wreck on my pony, their already
challenged partnership is pushed beyond the acceptable zone. S. needs
to spend the next year or so riding plugs as Star's amazing cattiness
and nonstop energy are now making S. afraid, and S. has begun to ride
with a deathgrip, clenched muscles, nervous tension... not good for a
talented and sensitive three year old. So she's not riding her
anymore and she's up for sale.
S.'s mother bought another of my 05 fillies, Rain's daughter, and that
horse is a plug in the making - a way better choice for somebody with
diminished confidence after a very bad wreck. S. is riding her a lot
now and used to think she was so boring, but now boring is more
attractive to her... Poor kid, but frankly, she was a bat out of hell
that wouldn't take advice at all about slowing down and trying to
develop some feel and timing, and of course I'd never wish a wreck on
anybody, and thank goodness she's OK now, but I am glad she has
stopped bombing around like a madwoman with no care at all about her
horses' reactions...
take care all
cindi
betsey
HI Cindi--
from the photos, it looks like she's sicklehocked to some extent,
which would explain her ability to perform rollback and turn arounds,
her legs are set "deeper under her" thus allready to rollback or "sit
and spin". I'd worry about doing much of that, if at all, on a
baby...BUT, you are trainer and I'll defer to you on this (plus, she's
not my mare!! <grin>).
I'm glad her owner has given up on her...but again, if this is a kid,
i still worry about ANY green horse=young rider mix. And understand,
I'm a safety person by trade and cautious by nature. So no yelling at
me for that comment!
Betsey
jmc
Well, I'm not the person to look to for conformation critiques, but I
like what I see, and if I was looking for a horse to buy, I'd come take
a look at her. She very much appeals to me! Probably because she
reminds me of the pinto mare I had in college.
Unfortunately I doubt I could afford the boarding/care prices
hereabouts. And I'm a long, long way from you (Northern VA)
She does look like a horse built for Western - like that little mare
from long ago she's built well underneath herself. Looks like she's
very nimble. T certainly was.
I'll be looking for the video.
jmc
cindi
>
> from the photos, it looks like she's sicklehocked to some extent,
> which would explain her ability to perform rollback and turn arounds,
> her legs are set "deeper under her" thus allready to rollback or "sit
> and spin".
Yes, so many of the reining/cowhorse types are built like that. She
has it to a lesser degree than a lot of what I see, even. I'm always
wondering what effect it has on their longterm soundness in the real
world. I know we all "know" it's not supposed to be good for longterm
soundness, but I'd really like to see some hard data on who went to
snaffle bit and who is still sound at more advanced ages...Maybe I can
get the AQHA or the NRCHA to give me a grant so I can study it. :-)
I see a lot of the aged stallions around here who went to snaffle bit
and who are still sound and showing at various events (like the
Magnificient Seven or the stallion parades) but they might be the
exception.
> I'd worry about doing much of that, if at all, on a
> baby...BUT, you are trainer and I'll defer to you on this (plus, she's
> not my mare!! <grin>).
Hey, she's not my mare, nor was I the trainer, so say whatever you
want. :-) It was all I could do as the barn owner to keep her from
being started as a two year old like they usually are. When she was
out for pro training as a three year old they did their usual on her
but they were able to progress more quickly thru the reining moves
than they usually do since she was so talented. They lamented the
whole time that they hadn't had her as a 2 year old so she could have
gone to snaffle bit... When she came home and I gave her owner l
lessons on her I did not allow any rollbacks or spins and no hard
stops from a lope - it was a real bear convincing her that those moves
are not the best thing for her right now, but it got easier as it
became apparent that S. doesn't have the skill to ask for those moves
with tact and was making Star upset...
> I'm glad her owner has given up on her...but again, if this is a kid,
> i still worry about ANY green horse=young rider mix. And understand,
> I'm a safety person by trade and cautious by nature. So no yelling at
> me for that comment!
S. is a very experienced rider as far as knowing how to not come off
if something happens and knowing the basics of pressure and release/
how to let a horse know he's doing the right thing or wrong thing,
etc. She's also 21 years old, so not too much of a kid. She's been
riding since she was 3. She has schooled green horses for pay and has
started two horses under saddle exclusively with my help and without
anybody else backing them, and she's done a great job of advancing the
training on all the track-broke TBs we've had thru here as well as any
other horse who already had a few rides at least... She is pretty good
at the basics and has done a great job with the two very quiet, very
sensible ones she's started from the ground up with my help (one was
3, one was 6 and never started previously.) But she can be a bit, er,
ham fisted, and not as tactful as she needs to be with a sensitive
horse like Star. That's why she went out for pro training to begin
with instead of her doing it all here with my help - I encouraged that
(more like demanded that) and actually paid for the first 2 months
(she worked it off for me) because I didn't want it to go badly. As
it stands now neither one is getting physically hurt by the other but
you can see Star getting resentful and confused over not totally
tactful handling. They are great to just goof around on a loose rein
together but when S. tries to do more she just doesn't do it right and
Star says uh, that's not cool...
Anyway! take care Betsey,
cindi
Babbling
I know absolutely nothing about western horses, but I'm a show judge
here in Ireland, so I thought you might be interested in what I have
to say from a completely different perspective.
There's nothing wrong with her hocks, she just finds it easy to stand
with her back end engaged - a sign of strength in the back end. My
best mare did the same from birth. A thing to watch though is that
sometimes it is a sign that they're trying to take some weight off the
front feet - so keep an eye for anything untoward there.
Her hocks are also well let down, which gives her a decent length of
lever. This is aided by her being compact in her frame, making it easy
for her to get her back feet in under her centre of gravity. She also
has a very good front end, and the set of her neck into the chest is
quite high, and with the decent slope to the shoulder, the top of her
neck merges with the wither quite far back towards her centre of
gravity, making it easy for her to lift her shoulder. When you put
this with a back end that can carry and can reach under so far
forward, you get a horse which finds it very easy to shift its weight
back onto its hocks.
Your filly's conformation makes it easy for her to collect - she'd
find collection easy in any discipline, including dressage. Her build
is most typical of a showjumper, however. If she falls down anywhere,
it is in the shortness of her bum. The standard guage of a horse's
proportion is to take the length from the poll to the top of the
wither. This should equal the length from top of wither to point of
hip, and from point of hip to point of buttock should be half that
length. She's shorter than ideal in the last measurement, but she is
well enough muscled to compensate.
I would agree that it's too early to be doing much that puts pressure
on the back end just yet. So many horses which find the work easy are
pushed too far too soon, and neither their body nor their brain can
keep up. I hope you find a nice home for her. She looks like a horse
someone is going to have a lot of fun with.
Best regards
Carol in Ireland
cindi
many people want to event or show jump on a tiny 14.2 hh paint horse,
but I do have to admit that even though I have discouraged jumping TO
THE EXTREME with her owner due to her young age, she has jumped her a
few times and she's fantastic. She also really likes it, as in she'll
try to veer over a bit toward any jump that's set up... heh heh.
Maybe she's just hoping she can take a big leap and dump her
rider. :-)
thanks so much,
cindi
Babbling
size for a pony, and therefore much in demand for children aged
13-16.
There's a huge demand over here and in the UK for 14.2s for young
rider event and jumping. A local man here paid €39,000 (I think that's
nearly $50k) for a showjumping pony for his daughter. The top ones
can make way more than that.
Carol
Eileen Morgan
> Don't you have pony jumping over there? 14.2 over here is the maximum
> size for a pony, and therefore much in demand for children aged
> 13-16.
We sure do in the Northeastern part of the USA, but Cindi is out West
where jumping and English riding is less popular.
> There's a huge demand over here and in the UK for 14.2s for young
> rider event and jumping. A local man here paid €39,000 (I think that's
> nearly $50k) for a showjumping pony for his daughter. The top ones
> can make way more than that.
Yep, my area also.
Eileen Morgan
The Mare's Nest
http://www.themaresnest.com
Melanie
"cindi" <alliso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5febca31-3eca-4b5a...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Meeko is 13.1 and I had a fairly respected HJ show judge (so I think the
guy's a bit is a pompous *ahem* and don't respect him but most do...and what
do I know :-P) tell me she's worth quite a chunk of change because of her
presence of desire to jump. Heck, my old trainer kicked herself for letting
me snap her up just before the first show of the season because she got
offers on her as she entered the ring for her first class. I personally
thought I paid too much for her and balked when my trainer tried to raise
the agreed upon price.
Melanie who wishes Meeko good luck!
Princess Pony who is making her 2 phase debut tomorrow with at least one of
the kiddies.
Blonde Ambition who I would like to get out showing as part of his grown up
boy training
Catja Pafort
> She's been riding since she was 3.
My experience seeing kids come up through a riding school and pony club
and all that is that by the time they're fourteen, it rarely matters
whether they started at twelve or at any time before that. Especially
very young kids might have fun, but they don't have the physical ability
to ride correctly, which also makes them less safe.
Catja
--
writing blog @ http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com
cindi
Pafort) wrote:
>
> My experience seeing kids come up through a riding school and pony club
> and all that is that by the time they're fourteen, it rarely matters
> whether they started at twelve or at any time before that. Especially
> very young kids might have fun, but they don't have the physical ability
> to ride correctly, which also makes them less safe.
I agree! Even though she's been riding since 3, she came here at 17
with some pretty bad habits. I just wanted to point out she's been
around horses all her life.
cindi
betsey
and unfortunatly, sometimes that's not a good thing <g>
betsey
ps-cindi, as of 1 pm today, Macho is the shoeless wonder
LandShark
Ruth
cindi
> ps-cindi, as of 1 pm today, Macho is the shoeless wonder
OMG! What happened? Is he having an issue and barfoot is your last
resort, or are you just trying new stuff, or what? Keep me
posted! :-)
cindi
Melanie
cindi
That's a problem I've been running into with instructors too. Quite a few
think that 10+ years riding means they're qualified to instruct people in
the art of riding. Nope. They really should be getting themselves in a place
where they assist a head instructor, learn how to instruct, and start with
teaching the rank beginners in the fine art of staying aboard. I would also
recommend taking regular lessons with someone who knows the art of riding
inside and out to improve their riding skills and learn more ways to teach.
Then there's the name dropping where they seem to think just attending a
clinic = "worked with". If that's the case, 12 year old V already has a
resume built for herself ;-) and it was mostly with Ms. Cranky Pants who is
kind hearted but always one step ahead of the humans..
Melanie
Princess Pony
Blonde Ambition
Ocean of Nuance
Maybe he doesn't have negative PAs on the hinds despite no crushing of
the heels and therefore doesn't need wedging.
Do you know what the barefoot protocol is for that (negative PAs on the
hinds w/ NO heel issues) BTW?
sharon
Ocean of Nuance
Just to add... the subject horse has been in wedges at least a year that
I know about and likely more before that and there continues to be NO
crushing of the heels. So it seems the lameness expert was correct that
wedging on the hinds does not exacerbate crushing/underunning (or in
this case cause crushing/underunning).
This issue is important because several barefoot types claim they do not
use or need radiographs. They look at the hoof. Well, that horse's
hooves look normal. And yet he needs wedging.
To this we also add the case of the horse in wedges for at least a year
that I know of, likely more, who has just come out of them. I don't
know her PA situation. I'll report on her progress.
There is always hope, at least on the hinds.
sharon
AKogler
wrote:
Hey Sharon! Your shitty and inflammatory attitude and posts already
got you banned from UD. Do you never learn?! Can you just shut up and
give your effing negative PA hinds a REST?! You are so damn willfully
ignorant, so damn accusatory, so apparantly incapable of getting a
clue, you pissed everybody off on UD including the mod. Will you EVER
get a clue?!
I MET a Calgary shoer who knew you and Pete very well. You are as big
a jerk in real life as you are on line. Gawd! Will you just give it a
rest and use the internet to actually LEARN something?! What is your
problem?!
Gawd Almighty.
Abby
Sue Leopold
IIRC, he keeps losing shoes.
Cindi, I have a friend at the barn with a four year old OTTB. His
feet were crap when she got him - very out of balance. She has
switched farriers - this guy is great btw - and while he was trying
to balance the feet, he just was losing shoes right and left. So
he gave her an option - glue-ons (which meant he would have
been stallbound) or barefoot. He's haveing a *really* hard time
adjusting to barefoot. His feet look better, but he is still very
ouchy, even in the indoor arena. She is using Venice Turpentine
on his feet, but still is quite sore. Do you have any suggestions?
Would boots help and what types would you suggest.
Looking for Abby to chime in here too.
FWIW, he has been barefoot about six weeks.
Thanks
cindi
> Cindi, I have a friend at the barn with a four year old OTTB. His
> feet were crap when she got him - very out of balance. She has
> switched farriers - this guy is great btw - and while he was trying
> to balance the feet, he just was losing shoes right and left. So
> he gave her an option - glue-ons (which meant he would have
> been stallbound) or barefoot. He's haveing a *really* hard time
> adjusting to barefoot. His feet look better, but he is still very
> ouchy, even in the indoor arena. She is using Venice Turpentine
> on his feet, but still is quite sore. Do you have any suggestions?
> Would boots help and what types would you suggest.
I've never used a sole hardener product... Not to say they don't
work. I would need to see the feet to speculate, but often TBs feet
are "pancaked" and that means stretched, the attachment is
compromised, and that can be very painful. More frequent correct
trimming will help; the wall needs to be relieved and weight bearing
transfered to other structures so it can grow down with a proper
attachment and not be constantly leveraged away with every step the
horse takes.
Boots should help. For non-endurance riders I like Old Macs. Cavallo
makes "simple boots" that are easier to put on; Old Macs are a bit of
a bear to do up, but I haven't tried the Cavallos.
Keep in mind, it might not be the feet... Forrest was sore for a while
a year or so ago and I assumed it was his feet, the trim, but then I
was at the vet's for teeth floating and I had him throw some hoof
testers on him and he had no pain in the feet at all. We didn't go
further than that for diagnostics as I figured it was his previously
diagnosed mild inflammation of the suspensory branches - uh, or
something like that. I forget now exactly what he had previously been
diagnosed with at his last owner's, and as he's sound now I haven't
investigated further, but the point being, sometimes it's not the
feet.
Other things that have helped horses who have had difficulty
transitioning has been low carb feed like Safe Choice and soaking the
hay. I soak the hay for an hour at least and then let it drain and
dry before feeding it, and my chronically NQR mare is sound now and
hasn't had an abscess in months. It's unusual to think of a TB as
potentially suffering from high starch in his feet, as it's assumed to
be more of a fat cresty quarter horse issue, but it can happen. The
safergrass.org sight talks about it too.
And I can't stress enough, as much as we love our farriers and don't
want to hurt their feelings, at least a consultation with a barefoot
trimmer can make all the difference in the world. I can get a name
for one in your area if you'd like.
take care,
cindi
Sue Leopold
> I've never used a sole hardener product... Not to say they don't
> work. I would need to see the feet to speculate, but often TBs feet
> are "pancaked" and that means stretched, the attachment is
> compromised, and that can be very painful. More frequent correct
> trimming will help; the wall needs to be relieved and weight bearing
> transfered to other structures so it can grow down with a proper
> attachment and not be constantly leveraged away with every step the
> horse takes.
Thanks Cindi. Lots of good information in this post.
He is definitely "footsore"; positive to hoof testers. No
abcesses, maybe some bruising. But I think you hit the
nail on the head when you said "pancaked." His
hoof growth is very slow, IMO. He has started to develop
more heel, so that I think is a good thing.
>
> Boots should help. For non-endurance riders I like Old Macs. Cavallo
> makes "simple boots" that are easier to put on; Old Macs are a bit of
> a bear to do up, but I haven't tried the Cavallos.
I'll pass on the information.
> Other things that have helped horses who have had difficulty
> transitioning has been low carb feed like Safe Choice and soaking the
> hay. I soak the hay for an hour at least and then let it drain and
> dry before feeding it, and my chronically NQR mare is sound now and
> hasn't had an abscess in months. It's unusual to think of a TB as
> potentially suffering from high starch in his feet, as it's assumed to
> be more of a fat cresty quarter horse issue, but it can happen. The
> safergrass.org sight talks about it too.
He is on a low-carb feed but his hay is not soaked. That would
be doable. though.
> And I can't stress enough, as much as we love our farriers and don't
> want to hurt their feelings, at least a consultation with a barefoot
> trimmer can make all the difference in the world. I can get a name
> for one in your area if you'd like.
Sure, I'd appreciate that.
Thanks Cindi!
LandShark
> > Boots should help. For non-endurance riders I like Old Macs. Cavallo
> > makes "simple boots" that are easier to put on; Old Macs are a bit of
> > a bear to do up, but I haven't tried the Cavallos.
Hey Sue!
I have the Cavallos (aka Simple Boots), the Boa boots and EZ boots
(newer and older versions). The EZ boots were modified to help my
horse in going barefoot. (The front was trimmed down to keep it away
from the coronary band, the grip inside was crunched down some more
and several layers of duct tape put over it to prevent hoof damage.)
They are a bit difficult to put on, but not horrible.
Cavallos are more difficult than Boa boots because you have nothing to
grab on to when pulling up the back (heel area). We have been spoiled
by the Boa boots. I like both, though. I keep thinking that I am
going to stitch on some kind of flap to grab to pull up that heel, but
have yet to do so.
Just keep an eye out with the Boa's and the Cavallos for rubbing above
the coronary band and the on the heels. Regardless, those boots have
saved my horses from a great deal of pain. I love those boots (both
types).
Padding on the inside of the boot is recommended, too, when trying to
take a horse barefoot. So many pads, so many decisions. I'll look
for that website, again, for you.
Cindi might know more about this, than I do.
Just my 2 cents.
Ruth W.
cindi
> Cindi might know more about this, than I do.
The new Old Macs I just bought came with awesome gaiters - I haven't
had to use them but I've had them on QH types with "thicker skin". A
TB might need it. Easy Boot is the bigtime pad maker; they have
thick foam pads for horses who need the walls relieved of weight
bearing, and they have textured pads to stimulate the sole, and all
kinds of stuff.
The thick foam pads for relieving the wall of pressure reminded me
that I forgot to mention something... I have thick pea gravel all over
the place, and for the ones who are sore (newly de-shod, recovering
from laminitis or severe white line disease or bigtime flaring,
whatever) the pea gravel is often the only place they can walk without
any signs of lameness. If the problem is not just sensitive soles,
when you think about it, a boot won't really help much, because if the
problem is that the wall is still bearing too much weight for its
compromised attachment to handle (laminitis, flaring, white line
disease), putting them in a boot is basically the same thing as having
them walk/stand on a firm surface like asphalt - the wall still bears
weight. So the pad that Easy Boot makes is mushy yet firm enough to
bear weight, and it gets up into the frog and sole area to transfer
some weight bearing away from the walls.
The horses that benefit from that also benefit from living on pea
gravel. The pea gravel was deemed by Bowker (or some other dude -
LOL, I have not done my usual amount of reading on this lately as I've
been more concerned with that Afghan fundraiser I did so I forget if
it was Bowker but I'm pretty sure it was him) to be the best surface
for a horse to stand on as far as helping the foot work
physiologically the way it should. The pea gravel reduces peripheral
loading by "filling in" the area under the foot and giving that area
weight bearing responsibility. I believe he tested pea gravel against
sand also but I remember he tested it against a firmer surface like
the inside of a boot or asphalt. If the trim isn't right, standing on
a firm boot or a firm surface is still going to hurt. The only time a
firm boot/firm surface is visibly better is when the horse's sole is
sensitive - so in that respect the firmness of the surface is
transfering the weight bearing to the wall, away from the sole, which
makes the horse move better because his sole is tender but is not as
healthy longterm (hmmm, kind of the same thing shoes do, LOL.)
I have a "pea gravel tie up area" and a pea gravel pathway and a pea
gravel pen, and I used to have pea gravel in my arena but it's all
mixed in now with the dirt and needs to be replenished. I'd like to
put down some of the dairy carpet stuff in the arena and then put pea
gravel over it so it won't get mixed in. I wonder how expensive that
stuff is... I must say the pea gravel in the arena is dismaying for
the folks who show up with shod horses... Nothing like trying to pick
pea gravel out of deep, soft, stinky shod feet. But none of the
barefoot horses ever have any pea gravel in their feet when we pick
them up unless they have freshly stepped in manure and some pea gravel
is stuck to it. But mainly the feet self clean, which is pretty cool.
take care all!
cindi
LandShark
different pads. Heh!
Thank you Cindi!
Ruth W.
AKogler
Feed Source.
Dont do hoof hardeners.
Boas were easy for me and they made a big difference. Buy the
therapeutic pads for the insides.
For my footsore ones I taped pads on them in the corrals and used Boas
when I rode. I put them on Daily 72 and Source. Circulation is crucial
and walking is good. The pads and the boots with a therapeutic pad
will increase circulation according to Ramey/Bowker/Clayton.
Pea gravel is a good footing. Shavings less so. Sand can ball up if
wet and bruise.
Most of mine did great and never were off. The ones that needed help I
booted. They are all good now and I am trail riding and on the
driveway gravel with out a problem.
I have four OTTs and they did indeed have big pancake feet. Its really
been wild to see their feet lift and change and get some concavity.
Yes, it took a while for some of them. Was it worth it?! Totally.
Totally!
Boots are very helpful as are the pads. You want the horse to be able
to move and not be sore, so babying them at the beginning is pretty
important. Diet also..low sugars matter. As Cindi has posted before,
www.safergrass.org is quite a good site.
Abby
Sue Leopold
>
> Feed Source.
>
> Dont do hoof hardeners.
>
> Boas were easy for me and they made a big difference. Buy the
> therapeutic pads for the insides.
>
> For my footsore ones I taped pads on them in the corrals and used Boas
> when I rode. I put them on Daily 72 and Source. Circulation is crucial
> and walking is good. The pads and the boots with a therapeutic pad
> will increase circulation according to Ramey/Bowker/Clayton.
>
> Pea gravel is a good footing. Shavings less so. Sand can ball up if
> wet and bruise.
>
> Most of mine did great and never were off. The ones that needed help I
> booted. They are all good now and I am trail riding and on the
> driveway gravel with out a problem.
>
> I have four OTTs and they did indeed have big pancake feet. Its really
> been wild to see their feet lift and change and get some concavity.
> Yes, it took a while for some of them. Was it worth it?! Totally.
> Totally!
>
> Boots are very helpful as are the pads. You want the horse to be able
> to move and not be sore, so babying them at the beginning is pretty
> important. Diet also..low sugars matter. As Cindi has posted before,
> www.safergrass.org is quite a good site.
>
> Abby
Thanks Abby.
This is a *very* nice young Tb. He is super nice; will
"walk" around a course at a horse show. He was in
that awful :"lose show; tack on shoe" syndrome which
is why our farrier suggested no shoes. Let him grow
out; you can't keep poundng nails into those walls,.:
His owner is knowledgable but she is a concerned
amateur which as you know are the hardest. :-D
I think the problem is his feet are so *destroyed*
from going through that lose shoe; nail shoe cycle.
He is being babied. Amy will feed Source.
I will talk to her this weekend.
Horse is talented. He can *jump* And he is as pretty
as they can be. Like an Old English portrait.
And he is a darling horse. So sweet.
I am such an idiot. I worry about all of them.
Jane Saranac
"AKogler" <ako...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:34590581-dff2-46ae...@b31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
For my footsore ones I taped pads on them in the corrals and used Boas
when I rode. I put them on Daily 72 and Source. Circulation is crucial
and walking is good.
------------
When you said "circulation" I couldn't help but think "isoxsuprine."
It has made such a difference in Bentley with his navicular that I can't
help
but think of it as the wonder circulation drug, and to ponder whether it
would also help transitions to barefoot.
It's not all that expensive.
I think if I had a horse having a hard time transitioning to barefoot, I
might be tempted to throw it into the mix, as well.
But that is a WHOLLY uneducated opinion... don't know if it is indicated
for that kind of use.
cindi
> But that is a WHOLLY uneducated opinion... don't know if it is indicated
> for that kind of use.
Coupla things... You will find that barefooters are pretty against
medications. I'm midway up the ladder of fruitiness with respect to
use of meds. :-) Some people are pretty darn adamant. Secondly,
*supposedly* the return of circulation to previously shod feet is
painful, as the structures begin to "wake up." So I don't know if
anything should be added that might increase that. But the movement,
where the structures of the foot work to circulate blood and lymph or
whatever else is down there, is important for healing. And maybe
isoxsuprine might help the newly developing circulation be not so
painful, somehow? Maybe I'll do a test case. I don't know anything
about it; is it topical, or what? Expensive? Helpful for pain other
than heal pain/navicular syndrome? I don't think anybody here is
painful in the heels - wait, one is, a boarder's horse. (I can google
all this later - I'm on my way out the door, so if you don't have time
to tell me, no biggie. :-)
cindi
Ocean of Nuance
> I MET a Calgary shoer who knew you and Pete very well. You are as big
> a jerk in real life as you are on line.
Knowing I had a very good relationship with my farrier in Calgary, I
sent this quote from Kogler to him and apologized if I wronged him
inadvertently. Here is his entire response (direct quote, none deleted):
"Hi Sharon...good to hear from you. I'm glad you are doing well and
Pete is too. That woman's name does not ring a bell with me.
Regardless, I enjoyed working for you and our conversations as well. I
am direct enough to let people know if I have a problem with them, and I
never had any issues with you as a client or personally. I'm sure I
cannot even remember your name coming up in any converstaions with
anyone before or after you moved. Did she specifically mention my name?
I'm just wondering if it could have been one of the other guys I had
working with me at the time.
It irritates me that someone would say something like that, but I'm sure
you are more irritated than me.
If there is any way I can contact this person and confront them
directly, I would certainly be willing to do that.
Take care"
In the interest of moving on, I am NOT going to give him Abby's contact
information but I will if she lies again about ANYTHING, not just me, in
such an outrageous manner. I don't know if it will help but we can
hope. Some people just can't stop lying and should get help.
sharon
AKogler
wrote:
Feel free, Sharon. Its fine with me either way.
I didnt say I met your shoer or anyone who worked with him or shod for
you. I said I met a shoer who knew you well.
Its a small world Missy. You have a reputation. Thats not my fault.
Its *you*.
I dont lie. I never lie. You always sling 'liar' around when someone
calls you on something you dont like.
Is it a lie that you got bounced off UD? Why, eh? Cause youre a snarky
b**** with a kneejerk keyboard who who alienates people right and
left, even those who honestly have tried to help you, here and there.
Grow up, girl. Face up to your obnoxious presence that many people
have called you on. You dont like it? Then dont do it! And dont call
*me* a liar.
Abby
AKogler
Just making it a realistic subject line
Eileen Morgan
Abby. Don't lower the bar and then do the limbo under it. Let it go, girl.
AKogler
Knock it off!> > Abby. Don't lower the bar and then do the limbo under
it gone. Abby
AKogler
8:27 pm, Eileen Morgan <eg...@ptd.net> wrote:> Children!> Knock it off!
> > Abby. Don't lower the bar and then do the limbo under> it. Let it
go, girl.> > Eileen Morgan> The Mare's Nesthttp://www.themaresnest.comConsider>
But I get so sick of being called a liar when I only tell the truth,
ever.Ab
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
>Children! Knock it off!
>
>Abby. Don't lower the bar and then do the limbo under it. Let it go, girl.
Agreed. Let's decide to let the annual Abby/Sharon duel take a pass
this year, okay?
Not into it at all.
jrw
Ocean of Nuance
>> AKogler wrote:
>>> I MET a Calgary shoer who knew you and Pete very well.
> I didnt say I met your shoer or anyone who worked with him or shod for
> you. I said I met a shoer who knew you well.
I know ONE Calgary shoer and only ONE Calgary shoer knows me AT ALL,
much less "very well."
You are caught in yet another lie. You have no shame and no integrity.
You are a congenital liar. You can't stop. This has dogged you in life
and will continue to dog you.
sharon
Ruth Baltopoulos
> I know ONE Calgary shoer and only ONE Calgary shoer knows me AT ALL,
> much less "very well."
>
> You are caught in yet another lie. You have no shame and no integrity.
>
> You are a congenital liar. You can't stop. This has dogged you in life
> and will continue to dog you.
OK. I think we're all clear. Abby's a liar - big fat,
compulsive, chronic, pathological liar with a long history
of lying.
You are a stellar human, bubbling with integrity, humility
and all the attributes of Mother Theresa.
Now, can we go back to our regularly scheduled programming?
--
Ruth (OMG!) B
Eileen Morgan
<snip tit for tat childish squabblings>
Sharon. You shut up on this too. I'm gonna half to do some bitch slapping!!!
Look, if I can resist ever, and I mean EVER, responding to Brian
Whatsits, you two can have some self control about each other.
Dr Corinne B Leek
wrote:
>Ocean of Nuance wrote:
><snip tit for tat childish squabblings>
>
>Sharon. You shut up on this too. I'm gonna half to do some bitch slapping!!!
>
>Look, if I can resist ever, and I mean EVER, responding to Brian
>Whatsits, you two can have some self control about each other.
Mark VIVIVI here:
Willing to help with a few salvos. <EG>
Oh, Kenny! I need some ammo loaded!!
<sound of Boston feet charging toward ammo pile>
--
*** Conserve Energy: Laughter is easier than Anger!
*** cl...@ns.sympatico.ca
Madeline Rockwell
news:OdOdndf5G4AormrV...@ptd.net...
>
> Look, if I can resist ever, and I mean EVER, responding to Brian Whatsits,
> you two can have some self control about each other.
>
You're a better woman than I. I cannot resist responding to Brian Whatnot.
The temptation is too great.
madeline
Dr Corinne B Leek
Nah. His name is Brain Whatsit (no typos there). <EG>
Corinne & Crazy Canuck Crew...
Tamara in TN
>
> OK. I think we're all clear. Abby's a liar - big fat,
> compulsive, chronic, pathological liar with a long history
> of lying.
>
> You are a stellar human, bubbling with integrity, humility
> and all the attributes of Mother Theresa.
>
> Now, can we go back to our regularly scheduled programming?
> --
> Ruth (OMG!) B
cum bye ya my lord ,cum bye ya....everybody sing....
Tamara in TN
AKogler
Hee!
You were in public barns, that had vets and shoers come and go.
Dont get mad at me, I didnt create your reputation. You did that all
by yourself. I didint get suspended from UD, you did.
No one needs to lie about you anyway, the truth is bad enough, sheesh.
Why dont you go study feet or something useful? The internet is worth
more than as a vehicle for your personality disorders.
Abby
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
>Ocean of Nuance wrote:
><snip tit for tat childish squabblings>
>
>Sharon. You shut up on this too. I'm gonna half to do some bitch slapping!!!
>
>Look, if I can resist ever, and I mean EVER, responding to Brian
>Whatsits, you two can have some self control about each other.
Yep. I'll be right there too.
I am *so* not into the annual festival of Hayt.
jrw
Una
>Dont get mad at me, I didnt create your reputation. You did that all
>by yourself. I didint get suspended from UD, you did.
>
>No one needs to lie about you anyway, the truth is bad enough, sheesh.
Abby Kogler has passed my troll threshold. It's time to ignore her.
Una
LandShark
>
> Abby Kogler has passed my troll threshold. It's time to ignore her.
>
> Una
I vehemently, disagree that Abby is a troll. I understand her
frustration and her not wanting to back down. She hit her boiling
point, is all. Sharon doesn't want to back down, either. So, they go
at it. But troll? No. Abby? No. Not even close.
Ruth W.
Ruth Baltpoulos
> AKogler <ako...@san.rr.com> wrote:
Your troll threshold seems to include flaming matches. Mine doesn't.
Although I do prefer this end.
--
Ruth B
Mary Healey
> I vehemently, disagree that Abby is a troll.
She doesn't troll the group, but she sure as hell trolls sharon.
"Hey Sharon! Your shitty and inflammatory attitude and posts ..." Blah,
blah, blah. Then Abby gets all cranky and pissed off when sharon responds.
Very much not impressed.
--
Mary H. and the restored Ames National Zoo:
The Right Reverand Sir Edgar "Lucky" Pan-Waffles;
U-CD ANZ Babylon Ranger, CD, RE; ANZ Pas de Duke, RN; and rotund Rhia
Ocean of Nuance
> Ocean of Nuance wrote:
> <snip tit for tat childish squabblings>
>
> Sharon. You shut up on this too. I'm gonna half to do some bitch
> slapping!!!
>
> Look, if I can resist ever, and I mean EVER, responding to Brian
> Whatsits, you two can have some self control about each other.
Well, as long as you put it that way. :)
I consider you a master at living your life despite any and all odds.
If you tell me to shut up about it then I will.
sharon
LandShark
> LandShark <landsharkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I vehemently, disagree that Abby is a troll.
>
> She doesn't troll the group, but she sure as hell trolls sharon.
> "Hey Sharon! Your shitty and inflammatory attitude and posts ..." Blah,
> blah, blah. Then Abby gets all cranky and pissed off when sharon responds.
>
> Very much not impressed.
They both get aggravated/irritated. I can't and won't say that Abby
trolls Sharon. Just because they are viewing some or all of the same
groups doesn't necessarily, mean that Abby is "trolling sharon
(sic)." Besides, even if she is.... so?
Both have strong opinions about all kinds of things.
Ruth W.
Una
she is *being* a troll right now.
Una
Ruth Baltpoulos
> They both get aggravated/irritated. I can't and won't say that Abby
> trolls Sharon. Just because they are viewing some or all of the same
> groups doesn't necessarily, mean that Abby is "trolling sharon
> (sic)." Besides, even if she is.... so?
> Both have strong opinions about all kinds of things.
Just because two people have a history of battling does not make ONE of
them a troll. Sharon has been as guilty of the foolishness as Abby.
She has toned down some of her asininity in this forum, but was recently
booted off of UD for the same type of thing. No, it should not be
brought across the groups, but having had to deal with this myself in
the past, I can see where it might be difficult to zip it.
--
Ruth B
Mary Healey
> Just because they are viewing some or all of the same
> groups doesn't necessarily, mean that Abby is "trolling sharon
> (sic)."
Viewing? True. Taking potshots, otoh, instead of killfiling each other?
Bad form.
> Besides, even if she is.... so?
I find your acceptance of incivility disturbing.
> Both have strong opinions about all kinds of things.
And both are entertaining, informative reads on all kinds of things. Just
not on each other.
LandShark
> LandShark wrote:
> > They both get aggravated/irritated. I can't and won't say that Abby
> > trolls Sharon. Just because they are viewing some or all of the same
> > groups doesn't necessarily, mean that Abby is "trolling sharon
> > (sic)." Besides, even if she is.... so?
> > Both have strong opinions about all kinds of things.
>
> Just because two people have a history of battling does not make ONE of
> them a troll. Sharon has been as guilty of the foolishness as Abby.
Oops. I didn't mean to sound like I was saying that Abby was a troll
or trolling. I meant that if Abby was viewing the same sites as
Sharon, so what?
<snipped>
>
> but having had to deal with this myself in
> the past, I can see where it might be difficult to zip it.
Agreed.
Ruth W.
LandShark
LandShark
> LandShark <landsharkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just because they are viewing some or all of the same
> > groups doesn't necessarily, mean that Abby is "trolling sharon
> > (sic)."
>
> Viewing? True. Taking potshots, otoh, instead of killfiling each other?
> Bad form.
Some of us don't have killfile available. But, we don't have to read
it.
>
> > Besides, even if she is.... so?
>
> I find your acceptance of incivility disturbing.
Really?! Because I think it's acceptable that Abby may do as she damn
well pleases as far as her surfing the internet? Same thing for
Sharon? So be it.
> > Both have strong opinions about all kinds of things.
>
> And both are entertaining, informative reads on all kinds of things. Just
> not on each other.
Fair enough. However, I understand the frustration, as well as the
difficulty in trying to avoid personal attacks, refraining from making
personal attacks or both. Sometimes, something just gets the better
of us and off we go... expressing our opinions.
I agree with Ruth B. in that it can be difficult to zip it.
Ruth W.
AKogler
> A troll is someone who seeks attention, at any cost. If you like
> she is *being* a troll right now.
>
No.
Sharon needles Cindi mercilessly an a variety of subjects. Her latest
one is the BF thing. Cindi does a great job with her horses,her kids,
and her feet. Sharon harangued her one more time in Betseys thread for
petes sake about her effing negative pa's behind. Sorry, that makes me
see red. I really like Cindi and give her a ton of credit. Why should
Sharon continually needle her? Why is *that* not trolling, or
incivility?
Man, some people have real double standards.
Why am I the bad guy for calling her on her meanness once in a while?
Several of you climb all over Brian and other inanitites here. But I
climb on Sharon how often, twice a year? And Im a troll? And seeking
attention?
Man.
Im surprised and disappointed. I have been here over ten years and
have a history here that does not deserve being called a troll or
uncivil.
I have never been kicked off a moderated group. I have never trolled
anyone.
Abby
AKogler
> LandShark <landsharkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I vehemently, disagree that Abby is a troll.
>
> She doesn't troll the group, but she sure as hell trolls sharon.
> "Hey Sharon! Your shitty and inflammatory attitude and posts ..." Blah,
> blah, blah. Then Abby gets all cranky and pissed off when sharon responds.
>
> Very much not impressed.
>
I have stuck up for the people that she harrasses and lies about on
this and other groups. I not nearly as often as she deserves call her
on her bigotry toward everyone from Tamara to Corrine to Cindi. If she
did that about you like she has done it about Cindi and the others, I
would stick up for you. I sure dont call it trolling.
Abby
law
> Sharon needles Cindi mercilessly an a variety of subjects. Her latest
> one is the BF thing. Cindi does a great job with her horses,her kids,
> and her feet. Sharon harangued her one more time in Betseys thread for
> petes sake about her effing negative pa's behind. Sorry, that makes me
> see red. I really like Cindi and give her a ton of credit. Why should
> Sharon continually needle her? Why is *that* not trolling, or
> incivility?
>
Because, as with many "bully" types, it makes her feel more important.
She just hasn't realized it's all self-importance.
LisaW
--
Mamet: "The secret to winning any debate is to marginalize your oponent.
By painting them as a glue-sniffing moron, you easily win the issue at
hand."
Cobb: "WRONG. Don't listen to a word he says, Tucker."
Mamet (gyrating madly): "Dah Dah Dah. Don't wisten to a word he sez,
Tuckah. Doh Doh Dah."
Cobb: "I stand corrected."
Mamet: "They charge 20 Grand for this stuff at Univeristy."
"Deflocked" -- July, 10, 2008
betsey
Abs---
for whatever reason, sharon seems to inspire sympathy. why, i haven't
a clue. nor, at this point, do i WANT a clue on that one! sad, isn't
it?
betsey
cindi
> I have never been kicked off a moderated group. I have never trolled
> anyone.
I manage to sometimes have civil conversations with Sharon. I don't
know quite how that happens; I guess I forget how rude she has been to
me. Or maybe I don't care; I like talking about some of this stuff
enough that I do it with her anyway. I don't know. Maybe I'm waiting
for that big "you were right" thing from her - about Pete's feet and
about groundwork. Who knows my motivation; I sure don't. ;-) I have
very much appreciated the times you've stepped in to say something
when she's gotten nasty. I do not think at all that you are out of
bounds or trolling right now. I am getting to the point that I'm
ashamed of how some people treat Brian. Let's face it, it's been a
few years now, and he's still alive, and doing some trail rides and
some showing. He's not perfect. Big deal. I am starting to like
him; he is very witty and very smart on a wide range of subjects. But
maybe this is just proof that I'm a ninny who is influenced by
lipstick on a pig, so to speak - I don't know. So whatever that all
means - I guess I'm trying to say I'm very surprised to see Una call
you a troll. I was under the impression that people who have some
sort of internet relationship built up can't possibly be trolling each
other, due to the definition of the word troll. Y'all can be bitches
to each other, but that's different! :-) :-)
take care,
cindi
AKogler
> On Oct 16, 12:29 pm, AKogler <akog...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I have never been kicked off a moderated group. I have never trolled
> > anyone.
>
> I manage to sometimes have civil conversations with Sharon. I don't
> know quite how that happens; I guess I forget how rude she has been to
> me. Or maybe I don't care; I like talking about some of this stuff
> enough that I do it with her anyway. I don't know. Maybe I'm waiting
> for that big "you were right" thing from her - about Pete's feet and
> about groundwork. Who knows my motivation; I sure don't. ;-) I have
> very much appreciated the times you've stepped in to say something
> when she's gotten nasty.>
Yes, where are the police when she pulls that crap on you? I cant bear
it.
< I do not think at all that you are out of
> bounds or trolling right now. I am getting to the point that I'm
> ashamed of how some people treat Brian. Let's face it, it's been a
> few years now, and he's still alive, and doing some trail rides and
> some showing. He's not perfect. Big deal. I am starting to like
> him; he is very witty and very smart on a wide range of subjects. But
> maybe this is just proof that I'm a ninny who is influenced by
> lipstick on a pig, so to speak - I don't know. So whatever that all
> means - I guess I'm trying to say I'm very surprised to see Una call
> you a troll. I was under the impression that people who have some
> sort of internet relationship built up can't possibly be trolling each
> other, due to the definition of the word troll. Y'all can be bitches
> to each other, but that's different! :-) :-)
>
I am never ever a bitch without a very good reason. I never start
fights here. Ever.
Abby
Jill
news:583145ff-16ae-4c7b...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 16, 1:35 pm, cindi <allisonac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 12:29 pm, AKogler <akog...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I have never been kicked off a moderated group. I have never trolled
> > anyone.
>
> I manage to sometimes have civil conversations with Sharon. I don't
> know quite how that happens; I guess I forget how rude she has been to
> me. Or maybe I don't care; I like talking about some of this stuff
> enough that I do it with her anyway. I don't know. Maybe I'm waiting
> for that big "you were right" thing from her - about Pete's feet and
> about groundwork. Who knows my motivation; I sure don't. ;-) I have
> very much appreciated the times you've stepped in to say something
> when she's gotten nasty.>
Yes, where are the police when she pulls that crap on you? I cant bear
it.
Probably because Cindi is capable of standing up for herself! whether that
is ignoring the stupidity of sharons interjections, or saying that something
was beyond the pail in comment. THEN folks can pile in.
I love your posts, Abby, rare tho they are, but that one at sharon seemed
well out of the box, really. There was definately a sharp intake of breath
here.
Little or no posts for ages and then THAT - sharons posts were ones that
simply lower any credibility she might want to have, yours came across the
ether really badly. You are worth more.
If Cindi ever feels that a post is hurting, then she has to know she has
enough support around here to be able to flag it up here. But she is also
strong enough in her own experience and beliefs to let someone else's
insecurities and inablity to appreciate other ideas, pass beneath her feet
where they belong.
BW is a completely different kettle of fish and his dangerous, stupid,
suggestions have to be moderated on an archive of horse topics. [others find
they have to do likewise in other groups - plausible he might sound but what
he posts is far from acceptible.
--
regards
Jill Bowis
Domestic Poultry and Waterfowl Solutions
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine Nursery
Seasonal Farm Food
http://www.kintaline.co.uk
AKogler
>
> Yes, where are the police when she pulls that crap on you? I cant bear
> it.
>
> Probably because Cindi is capable of standing up for herself! whether that
> is ignoring the stupidity of sharons interjections, or saying that something
> was beyond the pail in comment. THEN folks can pile in.
> I love your posts, Abby, rare tho they are, but that one at sharon seemed
> well out of the box, really. There was definately a sharp intake of breath
> here.
> Little or no posts for ages and then THAT - sharons posts were ones that
> simply lower any credibility she might want to have, yours came across the
> ether really badly. You are worth more.>
Ya know, Jill, I admit that it still really rankles when she brought
Cindi into UD. Maybe that instance still clouds my feelings about the
whole deal. When she snarked Cindi yet again I just had had it. Cindi
who was just answering Betsys post, for petes sake. And there comes
Sharon with her damn negative pa crap again. Maybe cause I had seen
her go on and on on UD re the topic and it was all so fresh in my
mind.
> If Cindi ever feels that a post is hurting, then she has to know she has
> enough support around here to be able to flag it up here. But she is also
> strong enough in her own experience and beliefs to let someone else's
> insecurities and inablity to appreciate other ideas, pass beneath her feet
> where they belong.
>
Its been so blatant. Yes, Cindi can stick up for herself but cripes,
why should she have to? Why cant Sharon just LEAVE HER ALONE. Its a
constant gotcha game for her. Where are the police when she is
haranguing Cindi?
> BW is a completely different kettle of fish and his dangerous, stupid,
> suggestions have to be moderated on an archive of horse topics. [others find
> they have to do likewise in other groups - plausible he might sound but what
> he posts is far from acceptible.
>
I dont disagree. But there seems to be a double standard.
I appreciate the kind words. You and others are doing your sweet parts
to rein in my temper and I will try harder. But I make no guarantee
that if she snarks again I wont blast her for it. If more people did
maybe she wouldnt feel such license. I never pick on her UNLESS SHE IS
SNARKING SOMEBODY. Ever.
Abby
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> Maybe I'm waiting
> for that big "you were right" thing from her - about Pete's feet
If you tell me what you were right about and what I was wrong about in
re Pete's feet you won't have to wait any longer for me to say so... it
will happen immediately. I'm assuming you are now associating yourself
with the lameness expert's advice?
> and about groundwork.
Not sure what you mean but if you advocate the type of groundwork I have
been doing with Pete then you are right and I'll say so now.
sharon
Jill
On Oct 16, 2:10 pm, "Jill" <m...@NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Yes, where are the police when she pulls that crap on you? I cant bear
> it.
>
> Probably because Cindi is capable of standing up for herself! whether that
> is ignoring the stupidity of sharons interjections, or saying that
> something
> was beyond the pail in comment. THEN folks can pile in.
> I love your posts, Abby, rare tho they are, but that one at sharon seemed
> well out of the box, really. There was definately a sharp intake of breath
> here.
> Little or no posts for ages and then THAT - sharons posts were ones that
> simply lower any credibility she might want to have, yours came across the
> ether really badly. You are worth more.>
Ya know, Jill, I admit that it still really rankles when she brought
Cindi into UD. Maybe that instance still clouds my feelings about the
whole deal.
You have to remember that most of us have absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of any of
that.
And that is our choice, we do not want to know!
From that I can understand the depth of your feeling, but you are better
than this, and here is not the place.
sharons comments make her look small, but your response gives her a
credibility she does not deserve.
> If Cindi ever feels that a post is hurting, then she has to know she has
> enough support around here to be able to flag it up here. But she is also
> strong enough in her own experience and beliefs to let someone else's
> insecurities and inablity to appreciate other ideas, pass beneath her feet
> where they belong.
>
Its been so blatant. Yes, Cindi can stick up for herself but cripes,
why should she have to?
Comments like the ones made by sharon this time come under the "pass beneath
feet" category, not the "stick up for"
Why cant Sharon just LEAVE HER ALONE. Its a
constant gotcha game for her.
Its sharons problem, everyone else is ignoring her silliness.
Where are the police when she is
haranguing Cindi?
she is not haranguing, she is making herself look stupid; its perfectly
possible to continue the conversations around the daft responses, which
delegates them into the midden they deserve. It reduces her credibility and
improves Cindi's in relation. That is what others have done.
BUT I do understand what it is like to feel as you do, its only cos I have
been in your place that I can resist more of the idiocy. Even BW !
I am not as good as Ei !!!! but then none of us are at anything <giggle>
> But I make no guarantee
that if she snarks again I wont blast her for it. If more people did
maybe she wouldnt feel such license.
No -- you make yourself look smaller than her.
Ignoring idiotic responses and carrying on without reference is ALWAYS more
powerful.
Snarking reflects on you, not her. Seriously.
--
Una
>Why am I the bad guy for calling her on her meanness once in a while?
You are the bad guy for digging up what you believe is dirt about
someone, gathered outside this newgroup, and bringing it here to use
in a personal attack on them.
>Im surprised and disappointed. I have been here over ten years and
>have a history here that does not deserve being called a troll or
>uncivil.
I have been here even longer. Looking back all those years, I have
to say, Abby, that your recent posts about Sharon are beyond the
pale. You think being here longer entitles you to be nastier? I
think the opposite: the longer you are here the better you should
know how to behave.
>I have never been kicked off a moderated group. I have never trolled
>anyone.
Some moderated groups are vicious cliques; getting kicked off one
of those is a point in favor of the one who gets kicked off.
Some posters here are confusing trolling with stalking. They are
two different behaviors. That said, Abby, you may be a stalker
too. Looks like it, frankly. You definitely are trolling here,
by posting the same poison over and over again.
Una
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> Some moderated groups are vicious cliques; getting kicked off one
> of those is a point in favor of the one who gets kicked off.
Well I don't think Ultimate Dressage is a vicious clique. A poster who
refused to read my thread jumped in at the end and kept accusing me of
misquoting her friend. I did make a comment about her lack of ability
to follow both the present subset of conversation and the thread.
My response to her was not what got me kicked off to anyone paying
attention.
I had three threads in the Observation Lounge that I started that were
pulled in quick succession, the second one questioning the pulling of
the first and the third questioning the pulling of the second.
I was warning in a PM from another poster too late that doing that
questioning the moderation will get you banned.
This came on the heels my my earlier questioning the banning of one of
the few known quantities, a much beloved poster. I questioned it
because they earlier banned (temporarily) another known quantity and I
thought they were cutting off their nose to spite their face.
It is no loss of ban a no account ammy like myself. It IS a loss to ban
two known quantities. I continue to disagree with the moderation in re
those points.
Towards the end, if you'll check my posts (Lizzardwoman), I was spending
95% of my time on the Observation Lounge having some super exchanges
with some really, REALLY smart people (one in particular will be obvious
if you read those threads). I will miss that. I won't miss the one
bazillionth post in the Training forum of "My horse isn't forward."
I don't know how anyone stands it. I've only been reading for a few
years and it is already far to repetitive for even a mealy-mouthed
no-account ammy like myself. I don't know how the known quantities
stand it any more. They are SAINTS!
sharon
law
> Una wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Some moderated groups are vicious cliques; getting kicked off one
>> of those is a point in favor of the one who gets kicked off.
>
> Well I don't think Ultimate Dressage is a vicious clique. A poster who
> refused to read my thread jumped in at the end and kept accusing me of
> misquoting her friend. I did make a comment about her lack of ability
> to follow both the present subset of conversation and the thread.
>
> My response to her was not what got me kicked off to anyone paying
> attention.
>
UD Oct 1:
Lizzardwoman: "I misquoted nobody.
You can't seem to follow a conversation or a thread.
This is not intrinsically difficult. I feel like I'm in an Emily Litella
skit where you end up saying, "Never mind" after you realized your errors.
Can I ask a question... is it hard always thinking you are the smartest
person in a world of idiots? Must be."
Moderator:" (quote)lizzardwoman wrote:
Can I ask a question... is it hard always thinking you are the smartest
person in a world of idiots? Must be. Shocked Mad Rolling Eyes(end quote)
Ok, I've had enough 'Lizzy'. You need to find another community to be
involved in."
Couldn't have been what you said.
Ocean of Nuance
You don't follow along either.
Nobody gets kicked off for JUST that, especially since I was right and
she was wrong.
That was mild.
I'd like to see your reaction to being falsely accused of misquoting
someone. And all she had to do was read the damn thread. All you have
to do is acknowledge you don't know squat about this situation.
sharon
Madeline Rockwell
news:c3bd0c86-4cb8-44bb...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>Abs---
>for whatever reason, sharon seems to inspire sympathy. why, i haven't
>a clue. nor, at this point, do i WANT a clue on that one! sad, isn't
>it?
betsey
No sympathy from me. Sharon lives a lonely life rattling around my killfile
with only Sheliah for company.
madeline
JC Dill
> No sympathy from me. Sharon lives a lonely life rattling around my
> killfile with only Sheliah for company.
My Hero! :-)
CMNewell
wrote:
Amen.
Of course, I won't be surprised if that engenders another inane round
of spewage regarding religion...
--The Chuck
cindi
> Ya know, Jill, I admit that it still really rankles when she brought
> Cindi into UD. Maybe that instance still clouds my feelings about the
> whole deal.
Wow, yeah, I completely forgot about that.
> When she snarked Cindi yet again I just had had it. Cindi
> who was just answering Betsys post, for petes sake. And there comes
> Sharon with her damn negative pa crap again. Maybe cause I had seen
> her go on and on on UD re the topic and it was all so fresh in my
> mind.
Yeah, that might be part of why people here were surprised at your
post, because they don't see the other stuff on the other forum, and
of course it'll cross over as it is the same people involved, but
probably some people read here who don't read there on purpose... I
dunno.
> Its been so blatant. Yes, Cindi can stick up for herself but cripes,
> why should she have to? Why cant Sharon just LEAVE HER ALONE. Its a
> constant gotcha game for her. Where are the police when she is
> haranguing Cindi?
The gotcha thing, yeah. Sharon will ask questions and I'll answer but
I never have the feeling she's sincere. I'm still waiting for those
glittery streamers. :-)
It is good that you are doing barefoot too, Abby, because barefooters
are underrepresented here and it's very hard to be swayed by something
that just one crazy person is doing. If you don't go out and surround
yourself with people immersed in the thing you want to learn about, it
is way too easy to just think you already know the answer. So I've
been very appreciative that you've talked about your positive
experiences with it here also... so people don't just think oh that
cindi is crazy. I mean at least now they can think I'm crazy but I'm
not the only one. ;-)
take care
cindi
LandShark
> > But I make no guarantee
>
> that if she snarks again I wont blast her for it. If more people did
> maybe she wouldnt feel such license.
>
> No -- you make yourself look smaller than her.
Oh, I don't think so. But, you're entitled to your opinion, too.
Obviously, Sharon gets under Abby's skin. She (Abby) gets tired of it
or upset about it and expresses her opinion.
> Ignoring idiotic responses and carrying on without
> reference is ALWAYS more
> powerful.
Perhaps.
Ruth W.
cindi
wrote:
> If you tell me what you were right about and what I was wrong about in
> re Pete's feet you won't have to wait any longer for me to say so... it
> will happen immediately. I'm assuming you are now associating yourself
> with the lameness expert's advice?
Pete's feet were in trouble from the first pics you ever posted. And
later I told you about the flare and the club and bad shoeing job in
general. But you can't possibly tell me I was right yet because he's
still in shoes. So no worries... it'll happen at some point. ;-)
> Not sure what you mean but if you advocate the type of groundwork I have
> been doing with Pete then you are right and I'll say so now.
Well, you can google the words Sharon or Cindi and the phrase "already
trained" if it has truly slipped your mind. That's what I just did,
and what a trip down memory lane it was. LOL.
But mostly I was just making a joke about wanting to hear you say I
was right. Hence the smiley.
cindi
betsey
Cindi-
of course you're crazy <g>....but, while i will not say i agree with
you (or anyone!!!) 100% of the time, i certainly learn from you and
get reminded of good things to try...and that's important.
I have a feeling that i could might sorta be able to say the same
about sharon, but she can get so darned defensive and up in one's
face, i just can't get past that.
as for Abs, well, she's been through thick and thin with me the past
few years. what i've learned from her has been sooooooooo beneficial
to my horse, my riding.
betsey
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> But you can't possibly tell me I was right yet because he's
> still in shoes. So no worries... it'll happen at some point. ;-)
But BF is not known to help horses with Pete's problem. There is not a
single case.
Furthermore, there is a seven page thread on UD with any number of BF
proponents who have fixed any number of OTHER issues. It is very hard
to try to keep the discussion on "A" when all their experience is on
"B." So the thread is larded down with irrelevant, extraneous posts on
founder and other issues because that is what they can fix. Some openly
disagreed with the lameness expert and the vet who mentioned this in the
article in "The Horse". It's okay to disagree with experts but only if
you have the experience base that they do. It was far from clear that
they had that experience.
Basically, the BF folks do have plenty of good results curing other
conditions (I believe them anyway at this point but I don't know it) but
who largely don't rely on films. That is clearly inadequate in the case
of negative PAs for the reasons I posted.
I apologize to Betsey for posting them in her thread. When you didn't
comment on my farriery in the piedmont thread I thought you had missed
it. The reason I did that is I thought for sure you would want to
comment based on past posts. But is was dogging you a bit and I
apologize for that too.
But now I guess you saw it and just didn't want to comment on these
issues. And that's O-TAY. But then it's confusing when you say Pete
can be BF when there is no reason to think so and plenty for reasons to
think not. So I'm confused.
sharon
Jill
>
> I apologize to Betsey for posting them in her thread. When you didn't
> comment on my farriery in the piedmont thread I thought you had missed
> it. The reason I did that is I thought for sure you would want to
> comment based on past posts. But is was dogging you a bit and I
> apologize for that too.
It was much more likely that she was ignoring you "based on past posts".
Yours not hers.
You clearly do not respect Cindi, nor many others here, which means that any
opinion or advice she gives you, you will ignore or simply argue with from
no position of expertise.
It is good to see you apologise to her though.
law
> law wrote:
>>
>> Couldn't have been what you said.
>
> You don't follow along either.
>
> Nobody gets kicked off for JUST that, especially since I was right and
> she was wrong.
>
> That was mild.
>
> I'd like to see your reaction to being falsely accused of misquoting
> someone. And all she had to do was read the damn thread. All you have
> to do is acknowledge you don't know squat about this situation.
>
Oh, I follow along quite well. During the same time you were pushing the
agenda in the thread I copied parts of here, you were doing your usual
"Let's attack religion and people who are religious" on another thread.
By your own admittance, you were doing your faux innocent "Ooh, what did
I say?" to the moderator about removing your posts. Add to that your
general winning personality ... I'd imagine this last was just the last
straw. Many times, in situations like this, it isn't necessarily the
last thing you did that gets you nailed, it's everything leading up to
it ... and this last nasty swipe (once again trying to make yourself
look more important to the general scheme of things than you are or will
ever hope to be) was the moderator's "last straw."
AKogler
wrote:
No, youre not confused, youre stubborn and recalcitrant.
I read every post of those threads on UD and saw over and over that
you would not listen, would not pursue information given, twisted and
dodged and refused to listen. Its a habit with you and people either
scold you like I do or they just give up. You got both responses on UD
and then finally got the boot over there. But Pete loses. Look at what
you have gone through with him and how long ago did people try to tell
you and your answers were always 'FEI trainers blah blah blah' 'you
never worked with an FEI trainer' 'How many students did your trainer
take to GP' etc like that had any relevancy at all.
I will tell you again and maybe, maybe someday you will get the wisdom
of my words. Horses are dynamic. There are the Laws of Horsie Physics
that are immutable but horses are DYNAMIC. Their systems are totally
inter-related and one cannot be denied without detriment to the whole
system. Until you really get this, and can get beyond your self-
inflicted 'But you dont understand that Pete is such and such and so
and so told me such and such' you will never get what you say you
want.
I remember Sharon when in a thread long ago you didnt even know what
Pete ATE. You said you would have to look at his stall card and see
what he was eating. How can you own a horse and post all day about
this and sundry and NOT KNOW what he was being FED?! There is just a
disconnect with you that becomes very frustrating to see over and
over.
Add a petulant argumentative personality and you get a person banned
and scolded like you are here and on UD. And Pete suffers. There is
more to owning a horse that googoo daddy/baby/mommy grossness. There
is responsibility to him AS A HORSE, and to put your desire to learn
BEYOND your ego. You have never seemed able to get past that.
Abby
AKogler
> You are the bad guy for digging up what you believe is dirt about
> someone, gathered outside this newgroup, and bringing it here to use
> in a personal attack on them.
>
Really. And Sharon promising to spread dirt on Cindi in another group
is okey dokey by you, eh?
> >Im surprised and disappointed. I have been here over ten years and
> >have a history here that does not deserve being called a troll or
> >uncivil.
>
> I have been here even longer. Looking back all those years, I have
> to say, Abby, that your recent posts about Sharon are beyond the
> pale. You think being here longer entitles you to be nastier? I
> think the opposite: the longer you are here the better you should
> know how to behave.
>
I know how to behave just fine Una. Sharon doesnt. I have every right
to call her on it.
> >I have never been kicked off a moderated group. I have never trolled
> >anyone.
>
> Some moderated groups are vicious cliques; getting kicked off one
> of those is a point in favor of the one who gets kicked off.
>
This is hardly the case on Ultimate Dressage.
> Some posters here are confusing trolling with stalking. They are
> two different behaviors. That said, Abby, you may be a stalker
> too. Looks like it, frankly. You definitely are trolling here,
> by posting the same poison over and over again.
>
You have got to be kidding.
Defending people who are the constant targets of nastiness is not
trolling or stalking. I cant believe you write this. Do you not notice
how consistently Sharon abuses Cindi and many others through the
years?! Where have you been?
I am not the problem Una and you are very mistaken to call me a
stalker or troll. You should take some of your umbrage out on the
person who has inititiated all this ugliness through the years, the
person who tries to slime people on other groups, the person who
harasses people endlessly and who is probably in more killfiles than
anyone else in the history or the wreck. It aint me.
Abby
Ocean of Nuance
> On Oct 16, 2:43 pm, u...@att.net (Una) wrote:
>
>> You are the bad guy for digging up what you believe is dirt about
>> someone, gathered outside this newgroup, and bringing it here to use
>> in a personal attack on them.
>>
>
> Really. And Sharon promising to spread dirt on Cindi in another group
> is okey dokey by you, eh?
You lied about this.
I offered to point potential buyers towards Cindi's discussion on a
public forum (rec.eq) about the horse. You lied about my wording to
make it seem like I was trying to spread dirt. There is nothing I could
or should have added to Cindi's own words on the horse.
Cindi was representing that horse as best and honestly as she could.
The potential buyers can determine how accurate it really was.
Anyone who has ever owned a horse and who would say it is inappropriate
to point potential buyers to a public discussion about a sale horse they
are interseted in buying is a hypocrite. PERIOD. I recall a person
here tried to call me on the carpet and yet I'd bet my house she would
want to see a public discussion by the agent of a sale horse she was
interested in.
Again, Cindi did not lie in the discussions here either.
I wanted that horse to find as good home. Nobody could have cared for
that horse better than Cindi. Maybe she actually saved the horse. That
wasn't the issue, now was it? You remember the actual issue and I won't
repeat it.
You continue to lie.
sharon
cindi
wrote:>
> I offered to point potential buyers towards Cindi's discussion on a
> public forum (rec.eq) about the horse. You lied about my wording to
> make it seem like I was trying to spread dirt. There is nothing I could
> or should have added to Cindi's own words on the horse.
I just went back and re-read that thread. Abby did not lie. Nobody
can know your true motivations; all we can know is what we might have
done under similar circumstances. Let's say I find a post on Horsey
Forum X about a Sharon who is selling a Pete, and I know it's you and
your horse they are talking about, and they are wondering if Pete
would be good for, say, I dunno, reining, and I wanted to say "Uh,
people, Pete is a dressage horse, not a reiner, I talk regularly with
his owner on another forum." I would NOT post a cryptic "PM me for
info on this horse." I would post to the group "Hey, you guys realize
he's a dressage horse, right? His owner regularly talks about him in
rec.equestrian and you can go there and check out the posts and get
more info on him." Not "get out your spy decoders and meet me on
frequency blah blah blah and let's synchronize our watches and then
you can get some super secret spy shit info."
I know what you really wanted to say, and you can deny it but it's
pretty clear. You wanted to say to whomever PMed you "This horse is
misrepresented; he cannot possibly be any sort of dressage school
master because Cindi doesn't know anything about dressage and she
thinks you can get a collected walk on a horse who's out of shape."
That was our previous argument about him here, the thread you wanted
everybody on UD who was talking about him to see.
I don't care - I am not threatened by your opinions about my knowledge
or instructional ability or anything like that. You're just not
honest. To try to talk crap behind my back and then kiss up to my
face about how I'm the only person who could have saved him (which is
total BS; it's not rocket science) is just really insincere.
Here's something Abby said in that thread:
"You have NO RIGHT to offer 'inside information' on a horse that you
have NOT seen, from a girl that you do NOT know, behind her back. "
Positively. Another potential avenue of involving yourself, if you
really had to, would have been for you to message ME and say hey,
people are talking about your horse on UD. Particularly since some
indicated he might be a good buy, you letting me know that would be a
good, nice gesture, benefitting me and the horse and potentially the
buyer, and it would be up front, not sneaky behind the scenes, and
your motivations would not have been questioned.
So the deal is, you have have intentions of X but when you do things
in a manner that looks different from how an average person would do
them especially when it involves somebody you often are snarky with,
like me, then your intentions, unless made very very very specifically
clear, are easily open to interpretation, and of course that
intrepretation is going to be bad. If you don't want people thinking
you are a sneaky self-important ungrateful internet user, heh heh,
then you have to demonstrate that you are not. You can't just TELL us
you are not. It's like when my daughter is rude and sullen and
doesn't do any chores and sasses me but then says I should know she's
grateful for all I do for her anyway... People don't know these things
unless you show them through actions. You can SAY them til the cows
come home but if your actions don't match your words then nobody
believes you.
> Cindi was representing that horse as best and honestly as she could.
> The potential buyers can determine how accurate it really was.
It's hard to think you really believe that given the nature of your
post on the matter.
> Anyone who has ever owned a horse and who would say it is inappropriate
> to point potential buyers to a public discussion about a sale horse they
> are interseted in buying is a hypocrite. PERIOD. I recall a person
> here tried to call me on the carpet and yet I'd bet my house she would
> want to see a public discussion by the agent of a sale horse she was
> interested in.
If you are on OK terms with the seller, the best thing to do would be
to alert the seller that you are sending people off to look for
discussions she's had about the horse. If you are on bad terms with
the seller, you send a message saying "PM me for info on this horse"
and don't say anything to the seller.
> Again, Cindi did not lie in the discussions here either.
>
> I wanted that horse to find as good home. Nobody could have cared for
> that horse better than Cindi. Maybe she actually saved the horse.
I don't think you believe that for a minute. I think you said that
then and you're saying it now to try to prove that your motivations
were pure after people got angry at you. If you really thought I was
doing a good job with him and if you really wanted to help him get a
good home, you could have sent me a message alerting me to the
conversations about him taking place in UD so I could head over there
and do some marketing... :-)
> That
> wasn't the issue, now was it? You remember the actual issue and I won't
> repeat it.
I have no idea what this means.
cindi
Ocean of Nuance
Ocean of Nuance
> On Oct 17, 9:08 am, Ocean of Nuance <lizzardwomanRM...@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:>
>
>> I offered to point potential buyers towards Cindi's discussion on a
>> public forum (rec.eq) about the horse. You lied about my wording to
>> make it seem like I was trying to spread dirt. There is nothing I could
>> or should have added to Cindi's own words on the horse.
>
> I just went back and re-read that thread. Abby did not lie.
I stopped here.
Yes she did.
If you read what I did write rather than what Abby lied about, you
wouldn't be writing this.
I posted here and ASKED you if I could point people to the public thread
here. I did it as a courtesy to you though absurd in essence, this
being a public forum and all. You never answered. I therefore never
pointed a single person to the thread.
There you go.
End of story.
sharon
Ruth Baltopoulos
> Ocean of Nuance wrote:>
<snnnnniiiiiiiiiiiiip>
>> I offered to point potential buyers towards Cindi's discussion on a
>> public forum (rec.eq) about the horse. You lied about my wording to
>> make it seem like I was trying to spread dirt. There is nothing I could
>> or should have added to Cindi's own words on the horse.
> I just went back and re-read that thread. Abby did not lie. Nobody
> can know your true motivations; all we can know is what we might have
> done under similar circumstances.
Oh, THAT discussion? Abby did not lie. I read the entire
exchange.
Disingenuous behavior at its finest :)
--
Ruth B
AKogler
> On Oct 17, 9:08 am, Ocean of Nuance <lizzardwomanRM...@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:>
>
> > I offered to point potential buyers towards Cindi's discussion on a
> > public forum (rec.eq) about the horse. You lied about my wording to
> > make it seem like I was trying to spread dirt. There is nothing I could
> > or should have added to Cindi's own words on the horse.
>
> I just went back and re-read that thread. Abby did not lie. > >
Thank you Cindi. Every person who read that thread knows the truth,
Sharons protestations to the contrary. She got busted red handed being
really wrong and she will blame me and deny till the cows come home to
change the subject. I love the internet..you can actually go back and
read the truth. Its so great.
< That
> > wasn't the issue, now was it? You remember the actual issue and I won't
> > repeat it.
>
Oh, please do, it will be just as hilarious as it was the first time.
> I have no idea what this means.
>
I think she thinks the actual issue is me >;->
Thanks Cindi for making sure that the record is set straight. I never
lie anyway, and I wouldnt have to lie about Sharon, she gets her own
self in such a knot and the truth is bad enough.
I honestly dont know how anyone can defend her, ever.
Abby
Ocean of Nuance
You KNOW she lied.
sharon
AKogler
Sharon, stop! This is beyond freaky. Your posts are all right there to
be read! Stop! Stop! Seriously, why do you keep at what anyone can
look up and see what really happened?! Do you honestly think you can
creat a new reality?!
Man, cant someone intervene with this girl?! She is really losing it.
Ack.
Abby
Ruth Baltopoulos
> Ruth Baltopoulos wrote:
>> Oh, THAT discussion? Abby did not lie. I read the entire exchange.
>> Disingenuous behavior at its finest :)
> You KNOW she lied.
Ummm, no. Please see above. No need to go round the mulberry bush
again on that one.
I was one of the privileged few to read that BS before the thread was
pulled...
--
Ruth B
Hunter Hampton
Come on...
I feel like I'm back in junior high school..
Can you all please take this to email.
Hunter
Ruth Baltopoulos
G'head. You first ;}~
--
Ruth B
LandShark
Not going back to read old news, IIRC, it was primarily, about Sharon
posting on UD for people to PM her if they wanted more info on Cindi's
horse for sale.
Looked bad and gave the impression there might be some dirt about the
horse.
Ruth W.
AKogler
wrote:
> Come on...
>
> I feel like I'm back in junior high school..
>
You are >;-> Cause some people have arrested development, all right.
> Can you all please take this to email.
>
Want me to write to you? I can send you pictures of my truck >;->
I have been thinking about you actually when I drive the Beast. I
wasnt looking for a 350 but after a while realized that 350s werent
any more expensive that 250s and then found this one. The first time I
hauled with it I took Ellens horses to her new house in believe it or
not Hell Hole Canyon. It is waaaay out past East Yahoo. The final leg
of the trip is a bear..at the bottom of the grade is one of those
triangle signs that shows the little person in a car under falling
rocks. The second one is of the little person driving off the edge of
the cliff (no barrier) and the third sign is of a truck going up a
vertical incline. =8-0 I had to do much of it in second gear. I was
soooo glad I had that big truck coming DOWN that winding hill.
I wonder how you manage sometimes and if you ever get yourself into
situations that you say 'oh CRAP!'
Abby
LandShark
Ruth W.
Hunter Hampton
wrote:
>Want me to write to you? I can send you pictures of my truck >;->
Sure, I'm not insecure about my truck <g>
>
>I have been thinking about you actually when I drive the Beast. I
>wasnt looking for a 350 but after a while realized that 350s werent
>any more expensive that 250s and then found this one.>
My F-250 has extra leaf springs making it a 350 with a 250 badge. He's
hiding his light under a barrel <g>
The first time I
>hauled with it I took Ellens horses to her new house in believe it or
>not Hell Hole Canyon. It is waaaay out past East Yahoo. The final leg
>of the trip is a bear..at the bottom of the grade is one of those
>triangle signs that shows the little person in a car under falling
>rocks. The second one is of the little person driving off the edge of
>the cliff (no barrier) and the third sign is of a truck going up a
>vertical incline. =8-0 I had to do much of it in second gear. I was
>soooo glad I had that big truck coming DOWN that winding hill.>
Is it a diesel? If so, you want to add a BD exhaust brake. I wouldn't
pull my trailer without one.
>
>I wonder how you manage sometimes and if you ever get yourself into
>situations that you say 'oh CRAP!'
Nope... but lots of Oh SHITs
Hunter
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
>On Oct 17, 12:52 pm, Ocean of Nuance <lizzardwomanRM...@nc.rr.com>
And would you ALL JUST QUIIIIT, DAMNIT!!!
You want to fight about UD issues, take it somewhere else. Just not
here.
Geez. Every damn fall it starts up again, over and over.
Knock. It. Off. All of you.
jrw
betsey
> Hey Abby! I'd LOVE a picture of your new set up!
>
> Ruth W.
it's purty, i can tell you that. the trailer can blind a girl!!!
betsey
Hunter Hampton
wrote:
>
>it's purty, i can tell you that. the trailer can blind a girl!!!
>
>betsey
I once had a stainless steel trailer... it was gorgeous. I bought it
at the QH Congress. It was sitting on the floor with lights shining on
it from all directions.
It looked like a diamond sitting there.
Had to have it.
Regretted it later because of the weight.... just aluminum now.
Hunter <- owns 3 aluminum trailers