|
Post by grayson on Dec 6, 2009 0:20:20 GMT 1
These credentials are not helpful. Dr Warren-Smith seems to specialise in wine growing and equine business management. She has been discussing equine research with lots of people in lots of places. I can't see any reference to how much time she has spent watching horses. I can see why she would understand a balance sheet, I can't see why she would understand a horse. The other guy shows from the paper he wrote above that he is well out of his depth in this subject. I haven't even studied the things that he has, but I have seen Join-Up behaviour displayed many times in a field. I would suggest that he learns about what this behaviour actually is, his description of it shows he does not yet know that. He should then look for it in horse herds until he recognises all the aspects, then design an experiment whose conclusions have some value and meaning. If he isn't versed in the subject, what is the point of trying to design an experiment. He might also wish to brush up Gestalt theory. Putting some horses in a round pen and expecting behaviour they would exhibit under very specific circumstances in a herd in an open area is not going to elicit a measurable response. I once saw Michael Schumacher and Nick Heidfeld in the same hotel car park in Salzburg, neither of them raced to the exit, and Michael Schumacher let Nick Heidfeld go first at the gate. At the expense of an appropriate consideration of excessive courtesy, the racing prowess of these two drivers many have been grossly overstated.
|
|
Caroline
Grand Prix Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 2,277
|
Post by Caroline on Dec 6, 2009 1:42:46 GMT 1
lol grayson
If you want to debate individual papers and conclusions, that's fair enough - but it isn't fair to imply that respected scientists are college students publishing rubbish to get through a course.
If IH wants a productive and interactive relationship with the scientific community, this would not be a good step. Mutual respect and co-operation is key.
|
|
|
Post by donnalex on Dec 6, 2009 11:35:52 GMT 1
Tess if the thread is an objective and genuine enquiry into Monty's/ Kelly's methodology, why on earth would Donnalex's name crop up at all? As KMs newest, closest and intimatiest friend I will be offering autographs at the end of this thread ;D My name does not crop up once, it is all over the forum. I got fed up of the drivel and lost interest but had seen my name over ten times in as many minutes. Bit of an obsession for tess perhaps? For everyones information, who may not have found the said forum, my name crops up lots and lots of times, indeed there seems to be a problem with me on their forum. The main problem seems to be that I am not banned from here and very definitely should be for having an outspoken opinion and my own fully functioning brain. It is ironic that their forum is supposedly based on all thoughts welcome, even if they dont agree they will welcome you with open arms and educate you their newer higher level of competence that is only enjoyed by an elite few on this fabulous forum. Absolutely all opinions are valid apparently on there but on here I need banning forthwith for expressing my opinion. Double standards spring to mind. According to the theory, ignorant people like me are very welcome on their forum to be educated yet they want me banned from here? And everyone on the site feels very sorry for my horses too. Early this year I sold Alex, later this year I bought him back because the new owners couldnt do much with him and he was unhappy. He is let out most days on thirty acres or so of spare land with other horses around it and riders passing through. Every afternoon he comes home and looks through the windows to tell me he is home. I have stallion who is running with mares out on the top in summer, he comes down to the gate to see what we are up to and have a scratch every few days. When he stops doing this I know one of them is in season so he wont leave them until they have gone out. Anyone who feels sorry for them is welcome to come and 'rescue' one at an inflated price I am apparently a bad person because I dont believe in rescuing everything I come across. Paying over the odds 'meat money' for a knacker when the meat men arent buying anyway is not rescuing it is pertpetuating the problem by keeping the low end dealers in the life they have become accustomed to thanks to the rescuers in my opinion. Its all very well copying from scientific papers, typing like someone who knows about horses and sounding knowledgeable on a forum, trouble is, it all falls apart when faced with a real live horse. This is because typing about a reaction/instinct/behaviour in a horse when it travels around the perimeter of a round pen or cohabits in a field with a herd is very very different from 'seeing' that reaction. Learning the theory in a classroom or on a computer is not the same as the practical hands on with horses. Anyone can copy and paste huge chunks of blurb from one site to another, understanding the blurb is more difficult, putting it into practise is in another league altogether. Some people know this and want to learn, some think they already know
|
|
|
Post by heather on Dec 6, 2009 11:59:06 GMT 1
I see Monty is not the only one coming in for some stick on that forum, and frankly, now I see who is behind it, which I had suspected, I am not at all suprised. It seems that I am being pulled under the influence of Monty and Kelly!!!
As someone who has long been outspoken, but in a way in which I seem to get my point home without resorting to militancy or rancour, let me assure the writers, that I am not a person who is easily led, quite the contrary, and after 40 years in this business, am quite capable of making up my own mind as to whom I work with.
Becky Holden and I were bombarded with emails from the same source a year or so ago, which were so aggressive in tone, that the writer did herself no favours from a credibility point of view. The inquisitional tone of the emails turned us both away from wanting to converse with this person, so instead of generating reasoned conversation, she put us off wanting to debate with her at all, because it was clear that reasoned conversation was not going to be possible unless one was in accord with her frankly, impractical views.
I am all for treating the horse with respect and kindness, but there are times, just as with horses in the wild, when tough love is the only option left.
Heather
PS- LOL grayson!!!! Great post!
|
|
|
Post by Kelly Marks on Dec 6, 2009 12:15:03 GMT 1
Tess re. comment about Donnalex - gosh I must have imagined it! Unless of course you moderated what was originally there?!
That seems like cheating to me - especially if you then claim it was never there! Someone needs to explain to me the rules of this game!
Grayson - great story!
Caroline - gosh the horses on your thread look like so like my Irish boys Banksy and Corky. I don't suppose that in fact, it's YOU that's really me? You don't happen to have an exceptionally beautiful and intelligent tabby cat do you?
|
|
|
Post by ashleigh on Dec 6, 2009 12:56:27 GMT 1
I can't help thinking that rather than spending time on forums writing nasty posts about people, or slagging off people who are already doing their best for the good of the horse, these people who clearly have plenty of spare time, Not to mention energy, could do some campaigning for charities like the Brooke, or WHW.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 6, 2009 13:19:09 GMT 1
I am apparently a bad person because I dont believe in rescuing everything I come across. Paying over the odds 'meat money' for a knacker when the meat men arent buying anyway is not rescuing it is pertpetuating the problem by keeping the low end dealers in the life they have become accustomed to thanks to the rescuers in my opinion. Following Ashleigh's post and this post which I believe makes a valid point... imo the important thing is for humans to change their attitudes to horses. In the meantime imo it's all damage limitation... and getting personal and arguing about what is/isn't acceptable in given circumstances is not a way forward imo... I'm lucky to be able to have field ornaments but I try to understand and not criticize others for making different decisions in their circumstances. Tess1 is right imo about it all being a continuum... if we bash and undermine then many are going to just get off the conveyor belt of learning and experience and how is that helping 'the bigger picture'? I wasn't going to post anymore but I cannot stand my frustration about all this and it's degenrating into who is right, who is best, who is a better person! Grrrrr!!! Humans... just typical ego's are more important than 'the bigger picture'!!!
|
|
|
Post by Kelly Marks on Dec 6, 2009 14:03:54 GMT 1
Yes this is not about getting a winner and a loser.
If it was I would nominate:-
Grayson for best anecdote Catrin for best grammar and sentence formulation Wendy for best scientific analysis and then ... no better stop there - attempts at humour nearly always backfire on these sort of threads!
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 6, 2009 14:15:07 GMT 1
;D
|
|
tess1
No Longer Posts on the DG
Posts: 228
|
Post by tess1 on Dec 6, 2009 14:35:24 GMT 1
Tess re. comment about Donnalex - gosh I must have imagined it! Unless of course you moderated what was originally there?! That seems like cheating to me - especially if you then claim it was never there! Someone needs to explain to me the rules of this game! Kelly, that is a lie, pure and simple - you know it, and I know it. The post has not been modified or moderated. It has always contained the words it contains now - it never contained the words 'stupid' or 'ignorant'.
|
|
|
Post by wabuska on Dec 6, 2009 15:23:26 GMT 1
Tess is all but throwing herself onto her own sword here. Have someone wander onto your board Tess, and call the founder a liar and see how long they would last? It's immaterial anyway, what was said, as the whole forum demonstrates your pure contempt for this DG and individual members you've decided don't rate.
I don't understand the toleration of the mods on here, possibly to stop Tess making a martyr of herself? IH and it's leading lights have been repeatedly insulted here and at a recent demo' to plan and in full by this poster and her friends. Surely, satisfaction has been reached and I for one feel harried by her unending, dry posts as the poster insists we see her way. They drip with anger and frustration. This very thread was moderated, to take out the 'no, no brigade, just little me' tripe. Let's stop all this going on please.
Kelly, you're just too nice. IMO you shouldn't engage with this person as it's not doing you or her any good at all.
|
|
|
Post by Kelly Marks on Dec 6, 2009 16:08:00 GMT 1
Tess, check my original post (not moderated) it says about comments on 'the site' - I was amused (sort of) that it actually was you who made part of the Donnalex comment. Other people here have seen that and some of the very unpleasant comments made - I doubt anyone chose to copy and keep it though - or even visit more than once - there is such an unpleasant energy in all that hatred and pulling people down.
I suppose I've made a mistake getting drawn into this. I'm ever optimisitic that good intentions will pull us through (and I called 'some scientists' naive! Talk about the kettle ...) I guess if it's taught us anything here it's how we don't want to be. So leaving now with peace and love - I'm just about to take world's best coloured pony (OK OK Only to me I know) for a lead out round the block - how can I ever feel anything other than bliss with that in prospect?
|
|
|
Post by portiabuzz on Dec 6, 2009 16:18:58 GMT 1
ahhh Pie xx
|
|
tess1
No Longer Posts on the DG
Posts: 228
|
Post by tess1 on Dec 6, 2009 16:31:55 GMT 1
I have checked your original post Kelly - please note where your quotation marks start and end.
"I think Donnalex is Kelly Marks' alter ego - she's just stupid and ignorant enough" - now Tess - that's really not nice for Donnalex is it?
Tess re. comment about Donnalex - gosh I must have imagined it! Unless of course you moderated what was originally there?!
That seems like cheating to me - especially if you then claim it was never there! Someone needs to explain to me the rules of this game!
I'm not very optimistic that good intentions will pull us through either - and yup, the words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' are in my mind right now as well - not connected to scientists though.
Enjoy yourself with Pie
Tess
|
|
|
Post by Kelly Marks on Dec 6, 2009 17:25:03 GMT 1
I blame Catrin.
She's in charge of my punctuation ;D
|
|