Working Stockdog Forum Index Working Stockdog
A site dedicated to traditional working stockdogs
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Sheep Finals Judges
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Working Stockdog Forum Index -> Politics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
suerayburn
Got a lot to say


Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 509
Location: Bruceton Mills, WV
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
grscott wrote:
I can't believe we agree on so much.

I'm very grateful I was sitting down when I read this.

grscott wrote:
I do admit, though, to being guilty of passing along one example of innuendo, and here it is again:

USBCHA wrote:
On May 18, 2010, the USBCHA Board of Directors considered questions regarding judges for the 2010 sheepdog finals in executive session. The judges for the finals will be Dennis Birchall, Haley Howard, Allisdair Lyttle and Jennifer Clark-Ewers.


See, I guess you and I approach this very differently. To me, "questions" simply means "questions" and could range from one end of a spectrum to another - travel, schedule, housing, cost and/or reimbursements, contracts, changes in someone's situation - and I guess I wouldn't have jumped (on my own) to even think of something that would be construed as negative. Now, that might have been a different story if people were whispering in my ear that something was amiss.

I often see posts on Sheepdog-L that mention a change of a judge for a trial, and think nothing negative about it. Changes happen. In this sort of case, why speculate?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

grscott wrote:
suerayburn wrote:
Different strokes for different folks.

Are our strokes so different?

Regards

Usually. Not always, but usually.
_________________
Sue
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
grscott
Scourge of the Internet, aka RiceMan


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 804
Location: Leander, Texas
PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Uh-huh. Thought you would get away Scot free, didn't you. Major computer malfunction here, but all will be gratified to know I'm back.

suerayburn wrote:
grscott wrote:
I can't believe we agree on so much.

I'm very grateful I was sitting down when I read this.
I'm glad you were sitting as well. I hardly want to be responsible for bringing physical harm to anyone.


suerayburn wrote:
See, I guess you and I approach this very differently. To me, "questions" simply means "questions" and could range from one end of a spectrum to another - travel, schedule, housing, cost and/or reimbursements, contracts, changes in someone's situation - and I guess I wouldn't have jumped (on my own) to even think of something that would be construed as negative. Now, that might have been a different story if people were whispering in my ear that something was amiss.

Questions simply mean "questions". Damn. More agreement. But, you do seem to be inclined to ignore the significance of the surrounding confluence of circumstances: a judge "judging", a quickly convened directors "meeting" in executive session, and the same judge no longer judging the finals. Does one have to be "a wearer of tin-foil hats" and "searcher for conspiracy" to see something of significance in that trio of events?


suerayburn wrote:
I often see posts on Sheepdog-L that mention a change of a judge for a trial, and think nothing negative about it. Changes happen. In this sort of case, why speculate?
I couldn't agree more. Happens all the time, although seldom surrounding possibly the two largest trials in the country and a judge who is a guest in the country, but the changes are usually accompanied by: "Due to a schedule problem, Mr. X is unable to judge"; or "Due to a family committment, Ms. X is unable to judge"; or "Due to contract issues, Mr. X will not judge"; or "Due to a disagreement on reimbursement, Ms. X will not judge"; and without executive session meetings of the bod. None of those examples raise any undue suspicion or issues of reputation.

How about this one, though: "In executive session following his judging of the Bluegrass, the BOD has decided that Mr. X will not judge the USBCHA finals." What does that conjure in your mind about Mr. X? Who created that "conjuring", and most important of all, is that fair to Mr. X? Is it my or your fault if we read that and say to ourselves, "Wow, what happened there?" Is that not a normal human reaction? Talk about generating gossip and speculation, which are, perhaps, contrary to the implication in recent posts, also normal human responses. I know there are those out there who consider the delightful "Ms. Rosie Scenario" their constant dance partner in life, but have pity on those of us with considerable age and experience in the vicissitudes of life.


suerayburn wrote:
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Sometimes a cigar is just a bad cigar.

Regards
_________________
When a dog runs at you, whistle for him.
--- Henry David Thoreau
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Working Stockdog Forum Index -> Politics All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group