Lets take this blog to the next level

If you have a photo of crappy show riding, know of a jerkwad trainer or judge, or someone in the show world that is an abusive piece of shit then send the info to me. This blog is not anti-showing, it's anti-abuse. So there is no truth to the claims from the TWH, ASB, western pleasure and dressage zombies that I'm trying to shut showing down. Instead I'm trying to make showing more honest and to get abusive practices out of the showring! Email me at shameinthehorseshowring@gmail.com



I have a request for my readers: If you have successfully rehabbed a show horse, or gotten a rescue and taken it on to a show career then let me know, I'd love to feature you here!






Saturday, August 15, 2009

Question for readers:

After all the bitching about forums and how stupid some of them are I've decided to ask the readers here if I should add a forum to this blog that would pretty much be no holds barred and open season on the blissfully ignorant.
A simple yes or no post to answer will let me know what you think.

23 comments:

JohnieRotten said...

Yes

That is why the gloves blog was started. So they could take their bitching instead of bitching on the Hood

whisper_the_wind said...

Sure...maybe someone might learn something...even if it is no holds barred, sometimes that is what it takes

an American in Copenhagen said...

No. Time wasted bitching is time that could have been used on something constructive. And it tends to magnify bad attitudes and make people bitter--on both sides.

SFTS said...

^ Agreed. Not to mention the potential liability when posters or forum members engage in illegal activity using said forum(s). This is still an active and volatile area of law which is evolving. Some guess there will be precedents set within the next few years, and many are betting or predicting that horse-related blogs and forums will be leading the way.

WashingtonBay said...

Not to mention the potential liability when posters or forum members engage in illegal activity using said forum(s).

Particularly the type of membership that is likely to be spawned from a blog of "this" type.

Put together a few do-gooders, a bunch of people who are really only interested in their own opinion, and a couple of Junior detective wannabes, add a little mob mentality that soon develops, and it's not long before 'righteous outrage' becomes outright organized harassment of people, like fugly recently was found to be engaged in.

If what you want is a place to trumpet your own opinion to others, then your own personal blog is a good venue for that. If what you want is a place for like minded people to gather and exchange friendship, information, advice, support and general camaraderie, then most of the "stupid" forums are probably already doing a better job of that.

No one signs up to forums to be beat over the head by rude, presumptuous strangers. So the membership here would likely be too many generals, not enough soldiers. In forums, the privilege of your opinion meaning squat and actually making a difference to other members is earned, through good old fashioned social networking skills and investment in those relationships, not just in a piece of software with a reply button on it.

My two cents.

Golden Girl said...

YES... Let the games begin! LOL

Skint said...

It's been done and done to death, resurrected and done to death again. But sure, why not, there can never be enough forums to read

Tuffy Horse said...

Well Sis,

I have to say I think a forum is a bad idea, considering I've spent the past year trying to get my articles taken off of forums. And when you ask people to remove stuff they turn into jerks and bullies.
Even with you as a moderator a lot of stuff can happen when a forum is unattended and an hour is enough time for a disaster.

Tracy M

horsndogluvr said...

Yes, if it's moderated.

I volunteer.

I'm pretty strict. I like logic, and don't like f-bombs, though some "vulgarity" is fine. I can tell criticisms (whether kind or snarky) from personal attacks. I'm a pretty good editor, too.

Ruthie

P.S. Would I be allowed to reject posts in text-speak? (Rubs hands in evil glee)

GoLightly said...

Nah, I spend enough time on the computer.

Dena said...

My initial reaction was God no please not another one.

My secondary reaction was if there had to be another forum would it be possible to build one in such a manner as to be safe for those under the age of 18?

Without the butterflies and rainbows, but instead of bitchiing and snark, something that was actually beneficial.
But still fun?

I honestly don't know knowing what I know of the people horses attract.
There always seems to be a small group that are dedicated to measuring themselves against that which may be more vulnerable.

I do not believe that it is possible to end equine stupidity.
It is rampant.
Offset some maybe. But end it?
Why am I hearing the music from "Mission Impossible" in my head.lol

Cut-N-Jump said...

Trojan Mouse- As others have said- it has been done, overdone and burnt to a damn crisp. Take it off the grill already, it's starting to smoke and stink the place up.

As with everything- you still have to keep an eye on it and moderate to some degree, to keep things from getting out of hand. Even then it can happen, when one self rightous, indignant individual brings their constant negativity to the table.

I stay off forums for the most part as I get tired of wading through and past all of the added pic's and nonsense people include as their 'signatures'.

I vote no, but do as you see fit.

horsndogluvr said...

I know that on Yahoo, you can set it up so that messages won't be posted until the moderators have read them.

Another forum I'm on has an auto-replacement feature so that things like a-hole are replaced. (That one is translated as "bacon-fed knave.")

Just a couple of ideas to throw out. I would very much like to see a strictly modified horse forum.

Hopefully,

Ruthie (still volunteering to moderate)

Golden Girl said...

"A simple yes or no post to answer will let me know what you think."

LOL, in your dreams!

Kaede said...

None of the nastiness on blogs or forms constitutes abridgement of first amendment rights.
The first amendment reads

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Being vile to one another isn't a violation of the first amendment. Chasing one another off blogs and forums isn't a violation of the first amendment. Read the first amendment again. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE no law...." The first amendment was about FEDERAL laws and not personal vileness. The market place of ideas is still open. There is no law preventing you from making your own blog.
Go read John Stewart Mill's "On Liberty" one of my favorite books by the by.

As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. observed "The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman." Meaning things that aren't paid for by the FEDS the first amendment doesn't apply. Unlike the old TV and radio channels there is no scarcity of resources on blogger. Now the FCC may take a long look at BLOGGER it self to make sure that it is allowing free access, but not at individual blogs.
On the other had, criminal activity is criminal activity. Has what has happened on various blogs criminal? I don't think so yet, no one guarantee a life with no hurt feelings.
But taking someones words/photos without their permission that is a copyright violation. Sooner or later a case will come before the Supremes about nicking photos, ideas, poems, essays etc off websites. Technology will catch up and (if it hasn't all ready) and that type of theft will be gone.
The Feds don't care if your feelings are hurt, the Feds don't care if you are nasty and cruel to each other, the Feds don't care if you are spreading rumors and half truths. If you think you are a victim of libel, take it to a CIVIL court. The Feds don't care. It is not a violation of your first amendment rights. But you will have to prove that the statements made about you were 1) untrue and 2)injured your reputation or standing in the community.
Which community are we talking about? Blogger, Shame in the Show Ring, Living Beyond the Dream, FHOTD,The Gloves are Off, Laying the Foundation? I don't think the Feds aren't going to care.
It's a real community they are worried about. If the libel damages a person in, say, the San Bernardino community so they can't live with out harassment, or they can't do their job, or they loose customers because of the libel then the courts will be very interested.
It's been fun this past summer, but today with the first day back at school. Time to get real again.

SFTS said...

Very interesting points, Kaede, and so true. I think some of the verbiage has caused a problem, and that what folks are talking about is getting lost in translation. "Illegal" can mean a variety of things, from Federal criminal law, to local (state/county) civil law and anywhere in between.

>>> "Sooner or later a case will come before the Supremes about nicking photos, ideas, poems, essays etc off websites." <<<

Agreed 100%. It's only going to take someone with the resources and legal knowledge (along with a good legal team) to push their case that far, and the courts won't be able to ignore the issue. Eventually, this sort of thing will have precedents, and there may be a whole new area of internet law written based upon blogs and forums alone. Not that I personally think more laws and regulations are a good thing ~ I tend to be very conservative when it comes to government and gov't interference in our lives. But the buck has to stop somewhere.

>>> "If you think you are a victim of libel, take it to a CIVIL court. But you will have to prove that the statements made about you were 1) untrue and 2)injured your reputation or standing in the community. If the libel damages a person in, say, the San Bernardino community so they can't live with out harassment, or they can't do their job, or they loose customers because of the libel then the courts will be very interested." <<<

Exactly. There have I believe been cases filed where damages have been claimed already, though I haven't researched them recently in relation to libel/slander/defamation occurring online. I've heard of a few, however, which have resulted in thousands of dollars in damages. Of course, the problem with the internet is often jurisdiction and venue, because frequently these things are happening which involved people who live hundreds and thousands of miles away from each other. Hence, a whole new area of the law, mostly yet to be delved into.

Golden Girl ~ I LOL'd ;)

Tuffy Horse said...

Kaede,

Good explanation. This is why Miss Claims to be a Lawyer saying that posting slanderous stuff about me on her website is free speech is just insane.
She's hurting my business and by advocating that my article is in the public domain she's taking money away from me. So either she's not a real lawyer or she's the worst one out there. Thank goodness for screen snapshots so the TBA can see this stuff.

And internet libel has already gone to court and the case set the standard. Sue Bishop got her ass sued for libeling another USENET member and she was sued and had a judgement placed against her.


Tracy M

bhm said...

My understanding about exploring new legal areas, as they pertain to blogs etc., is solely in regards to areas like physical harm. The case that comes to mind is harassment by an adult that lead to a child's suicide. Libel will be as difficult to sue for as always.

Sally said...

Oh for pity sake! YES

SFTS said...

Tuffy Horse wrote:
And internet libel has already gone to court and the case set the standard. Sue Bishop got her ass sued for libeling another USENET member and she was sued and had a judgement placed against her.
- - - - - - - -

Sue Bishop...Arabian breeder from Ohio, I think (or at least she was)? Was this the case stemming from Rose Volkert? Or another one?

If this is the same Sue Bishop, she belonged to both my Arabian Horses and my Arabian Horse Rescue eGroups back some years ago, sometime around 2002, 2003, 2004 and I finally had to remove her and ban her from membership on my lists because of a very serious case of harassment that went well into "real life".

I still remember that very well.

bhm wrote:
My understanding about exploring new legal areas, as they pertain to blogs etc., is solely in regards to areas like physical harm. The case that comes to mind is harassment by an adult that lead to a child's suicide. Libel will be as difficult to sue for as always.
- - - - - - - -

Not necessarily. And Lori Drew's conviction was already thrown out by the judge in her case. If you read up on that case, it was handled in entirely the wrong way, and poorly prosecuted.

Like Tracy said above, there have been judgments handed out for internet libel, and substantial ones at that.

katphoti said...

No, for several reasons already listed here, particularly Copenhagen, Skint, CNJ, and Tuffy. Also, why stoop to their level, TJM? We are all better horsepeople and (hopefully) better people than that. Posting our rants on a blog is plenty enough! :) And I don't know about anyone else, but I do enjoy having smart, educated, and good horsepeople to rant with!

Tuffy Horse said...

SFTS wrote:Sue Bishop...Arabian breeder from Ohio, I think (or at least she was)? Was this the case stemming from Rose Volkert? Or another one?

If this is the same Sue Bishop, she belonged to both my Arabian Horses and my Arabian Horse Rescue eGroups back some years ago, sometime around 2002, 2003, 2004 and I finally had to remove her and ban her from membership on my lists because of a very serious case of harassment that went well into "real life".


That's the one. That case set a precedent and any real attorney that knows libel laws would know about it.

Tracy M

Jack said...

Jean, of course....go ahead and blast away.