<PS Tracy: I emptied my mail "trash can" and no longer have Teddy's in which
<she gave the address of ride management. Would you please forward a copy of
<it to me? Thanks, lh
Laney, that PS took gall... I admire that!
I would assume that if you have not READ your e-mail, then you have also not
POSTED e-mail regarding the topics that you have not READ yet. Therefore, how
could you, or anyone else, feel personally "attacked" ( my words...not yours
) or offended by my statements admonishing ( the very very few ) who chose to
respond as they did ? Am I to assume that a new visitor to the system in
March viewing the contents of the December archives via the internet will
also be so personally offended by my remarks directed to those few who did so
?
If so... then I fail to follow the logic in your argument and you will need
to enlighten me.
Barring that, I will attempt to enlighten you,
Monday person A says something.
Tuesday person B says something.
Sunday person JERK (tracy) says something...and all hell breaks lose.
Monday next, person B defends those who made various previous statements by
claiming that ALL statements were made due to a lack of information, and
person B SPELLS OUT the type of information that was available previous to
person JERK's (tracy) posting that caused all hell to break out..
Person JERK ( tracy ) reads all of this and says, "Wait a minute...Person B
says they said all of that ( including statements by person B )stuff AFTER
READING THE CONTENTS OF OTHER THREADS but without the advantage of having
correct information first.
Person JERK (tracy) points out that not only were ALL of the users provided
with the source for the correct information, said information had been
provided by Person B themselves PRIOR to the comments being made that set
Person JERK (tracy) off in the first place.
Maybe I'm missing something.
As for will I provide you with a copy of the post referencing the information
in question...surely.
<MONEY PRIZES: COSEQUIN
<CHALLENGE
<
<RUN4BEAR@aol.com
<Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:03:09 -0500
<
< Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
< Next message: REJ548@aol.com: "Re: horse for sale"
< Previous message: carmanda@esvax.dnet.dupont.com: "horse for sale"
< Next in thread: Jessica Tuteur: "Re: MONEY PRIZES: COSEQUIN <CHALLENGE"
<
<Hey everybody:
<
<Turns out this ride has not ahd sanctioning approval yet and must be voted
on
<by YOUR directors!!! Our director was NOT aware of the money offered. I
<don't know if AERC is aware.
<
<Let your thoughts be heard!!! Tell YOUR directors what you think!!! In
<fact, maybe you would like to tell Nutramax, the manufacturers of Cosequin,
<that your not NOT condone $$$ for prizes.
<
<Nutramax Laboratories
<8024 Campbell Blvd. #B
<Baltimore, MD 21236-5474
<410-882-0359
<1-800-925-5187
<FAX: 410-882-0361
<
<Ride Manager for Cosequin Challenge is:
<
<Tracy Ingram
<792 Boliver Rd.
<Fort Valley, VA 22652
<703-925-9634
<
<This ride must have AERC approval for santioning regardless of money because
<is requires horses to qualify to enter.
<
<LET YOUR DIRECTORS KNOW NOW!!!
<
< Next message: REJ548@aol.com: "Re: horse for sale"
< Previous message: carmanda@esvax.dnet.dupont.com: "horse for sale"
< Next in thread: Jessica Tuteur: "Re: MONEY PRIZES: COSEQUIN <CHALLENGE"
I would also point out that this message also incorrectly states that our
event has not had sanctioning approval and directs readers so inclined to
"LET YOUR DIRECTORS KNOW NOW!!!" and "Turns out this ride has not ahd
sanctioning approval yet and must be voted on by YOUR directors!!!"
Well for those of us that have read our recent posts, we have seen that this
event is indeed sanctioned, has been since June 96, and that the vote has to
do with RIDE MANAGEMENT's request for special prerequisites of the 100 mile
competitors. We weren't required to ask for this, it was just the responsible
thing to do.
As for the statement "Our director was NOT aware of the money offered. I
don't know if AERC is aware." I was unaware that I was expected to ensure
each and every director was made aware of any issue, I figured that was a
function of the AERC administration offices and their accepted procedures. As
to whether AERC was aware. I'm pretty sure they understood the content of the
legibly typed letter we sent, and subsequent phone conversations ( hardly any
static... no vacuum cleaners running in the background ) explaining our
desire to request the attendance of an AERC ride steward due to prizes being
in excess of $1,000.00 as required per AERC rules.
( I can't believe I missed all of this in my first post...but then, what
would I have left to say ? )
Thank you for your response and interest in seeing injustices made just.
Have a really nice day !
Sincerely
Tracy