|
Post by donnalex on Dec 6, 2009 21:01:46 GMT 1
How else would you describe the pack mentality of getting together and ganging up on one or two singled out individuals Laura?
|
|
laura
Grand Prix Poster
going for a splash
Posts: 3,867
|
Post by laura on Dec 6, 2009 21:20:12 GMT 1
Donnalex I agreee with you in part really in that "preaching" and coming across as superior is not the way to go ......... and its what I have said to them on their forum as well as others. but a little exageration taking place too he arrived there on august 1st 2009 so 20 years is hardly accurate and to be perfectly clear ... I am NOT saying there are not insults exagerations on both sides .. just that two rights do not make a wrong and you ( as a general you ) can hardly criticise if you are doing the same thing I dont like the way IH, EE, Silversand etc are all critricised either but not every person who has visited the site. .... there are several on here ....... has extreme views or is "anti monty". Its been a robust discussion with high emotion because we are all passionate about our horses and have belief systems which we hold dear because we believe we are doing our best . Its a bit like religion
|
|
|
Post by wabuska on Dec 6, 2009 21:32:55 GMT 1
IMO I think we should just let this thread die off and hit the bin where it belongs. Some of the issues raised were worthy of plenty of chat and when they come up in a more open handed manner, we can explore again. We're all amateurs, QS included, and yes what's on show is distinctly amateur, but they are all by the looks of things on courses and following professional advice, and that's to be applauded. Stunning yard I must say. I myself am a happy amateur. I will say Donna' was repeatedly maligned and I don't blame her for being annoyed by it.
|
|
|
Post by Zoe RA on Dec 6, 2009 21:44:57 GMT 1
IMO I think we should just let this thread die off and hit the bin where it belongs. Some of the issues raised were worthy of plenty of chat and when they come up in a more open handed manner, we can explore again.
I agree whole heartedly Kanga. It is unhealthy and unnecessary to continue all this slagging off of either another forum or of any individuals on that forum - regardless of what they have said about us.
Onwards and upwards folks
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 6, 2009 21:53:07 GMT 1
I agree!! I tried really hard to ban myself but well I have to admit... I've got NO self discipline at all!
|
|
|
Post by sophielouise on Dec 6, 2009 21:57:15 GMT 1
I tried to follow this - but quite frankly, it had more drama than Gossip Girl and Dirty, Sexy, Money and my little ol' brain couldn't follow! Cake, anyone? Might help keep the peace
|
|
laura
Grand Prix Poster
going for a splash
Posts: 3,867
|
Post by laura on Dec 6, 2009 22:59:55 GMT 1
I tried that one sophie, it got declined ;D ;D ;D but thank you ....... yes I'd like a piece of cake yes maybe its time to <a href="http://www.sweetim.com/s.asp?im=gen&lpver=3&ref=11" target="_blank"><img src="http://cdn.content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020068.gif" border="0" title="Click to get more." ></a> oh flippin eck the emoticon link didn't work . .... was zipping up ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by cbc on Dec 6, 2009 23:12:41 GMT 1
Good grief, you do some work for a few days..................... I think Buddha rules on this one for me, thanks for the quote Heather.
|
|
|
Post by Dragonmaster on Dec 6, 2009 23:13:58 GMT 1
Boorring! I've just read the last 3 pages of this as I had avoided looking at it for several days - having been in on the begining, - and that is how i'm feeling about it. Nothing really useful is being said anymore.
Except... congratulations Caroline.
I think we should start another much more useful thread about Join-up. Join-Up: when to use it and when not to use it and why, when it works and when it doesn't work and why. All posts to be from personal experience of the practice and not from 'theories'.
Hmmm off to play on the IH members board methinks........
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Dec 6, 2009 23:44:41 GMT 1
They can't. Their approach is at best antagonistic to this and at worst incompatible, and is therefore of little interest or relevance to the average horse owner.
|
|
Caroline
Grand Prix Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 2,277
|
Post by Caroline on Dec 6, 2009 23:58:20 GMT 1
Except... congratulations Caroline. Thank you! And thanks to everyone else who sent good wishes and congrats. This was probably not the thread to make that announcement. Ah well - it reminds me of family dinners when I would blurt out the most inappropriate thing. I dare not give examples...lol!
|
|
|
Post by Moderators on Dec 7, 2009 9:47:58 GMT 1
And breathe!
Final warning guys - please leave the personal out of it and get back to the discussion or we will lock the thread.
|
|
|
Post by aero on Dec 7, 2009 10:33:03 GMT 1
Firstly I want to say 'excellent news' to Caroline .... the only bit on this thread recently that has not involved getting at people whatever their preferred training method or forum they use. Moderators ..... maybe locking it is a good idea, any forum, no matter whose forum it is, shouldn't be used as a slagging - off site... I hate it when people do this ...... It takes a bigger Man to walk away .... and it seems that some folks are getting to that conclusion anyway.. thankfully!!! Please folks.... enjoy your horses in whatever way suits you best, surely that is what it is all about whatever side of this argument you are on. Good discussions are one thing, but this s getting silly now.
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Dec 7, 2009 10:58:46 GMT 1
And I'm afraid posts like that don't help, using such emotive language painting things way blacker than they actually are.
Sorry mods.
|
|
|
Post by wendyihts on Dec 7, 2009 12:34:14 GMT 1
FWIW at this late stage of the thread (I've been off doing other stuff for a few days!) ;D I just wanted to comment about how 'post-modern' approaches to science might examine NH work and why that would lead to a difference kind of dialogue in the scientific and horse-training communities.
One key aspect of these 'traditional' (also known as 'logico-deductive') approaches to science is that they try to factor out the human aspect, they develop a theory of what 'objective reality' is and then they test it using various observations and do some number crunching to show the results were probably not down to chance. So, just like the study quoted by Grayson, they get a bunch of horses together and shove them in a round pen and observe (probably in a way so that they can't be seen by the horses). Good-oh... that's all well and good and can make for some interesting reading and we can even discover some surprising things that way.
However, there's this whole other side to the domestic horse, which is about his entwined relationship with people. In effect, I would argue that you have to factor the person into the equation - and more than likely, an equation isn't going to be the most practically applicable kind of knowledge. Too inflexible, missing too much of the detail of the individuals involved (human and equine).
So, when I read a book like 'The Man Who Talks to Horses', I don't see it as a series of facts that I need to test empirically. I see it as a story, as an individual constructing their reality, interpreting what they saw in front of them and then expressing it to others. For some reason, when that story is retold, and when it is adapted into other people's realities, it creates a change in those people and it creates a change in the overall horse/human system. It became, in its retelling, a series of new 'truths' for thousands of other people and overall it created a new system. It's also an ongoing dialogue and interpretation of 'truth' that is evolving and changing.
So what interests me as an applied positive psychologist are questions like 'what is it about this story that creates resonance with other people?', 'what works in this story?', 'what gives life within this new system?', 'how can we grow and promote the best elements of this new 'reality'?' and 'what creates positive change for people and horses working together?'. I'd love to see the formal 'scientific community' have a stab at answering those kinds of questions, particularly with reference to natural horsemanship methods. Most of all it would create a different kind of dialogue rather than this constant tussle for who 'owns the best truth'.
Here's a great way I once read about the differences in these two approaches. The logico-deductive approach starts from the premise that 'people [or horses] are problems to be solved' whereas the post-modern, positive approach starts from the premise 'people and horses are mysteries to be appreciated'.
The questions and interpretations that flow from those different starting points are very different and so, therefore, are the end points.
Maybe the IH students could have a go at those kinds of questions for their psychology projects....
(Edited for clarification and to amend lousy grammar! ;D)
Right, best go and do some proper work!
|
|