Flame_
Well-Known Member
Why is it OK to openly slate Parelli and their methods, and Amy Tyron on the strength of video evidence which the powers that be only think is proof she deserves a couple of days hols, but not really anyone else?
Is it because the criticism of these two started gently and when no-one really objected people had the b*lls to say what they really mean/had the cheek to break the rules?
People - myself included - are quite happy to rubbish these one or two "targets" when we've probably never even met them, yet we won't/can't speak our mind about people we have negative personnal experience of, even if we believe them to be ten times worse that Parelli etc...
OK we could be lying/exaggerating/have a personnal vendetta against someone but one person's slating only gathers worthwhile weight when others turn out to share the same opinion. So why is it that you cannot express bad experiences and name names? If someone is lying etc... surely everyone would just leap to the defence of the criticised person and a fair balance would be maintained.
Any thoughts???
Is it because the criticism of these two started gently and when no-one really objected people had the b*lls to say what they really mean/had the cheek to break the rules?
People - myself included - are quite happy to rubbish these one or two "targets" when we've probably never even met them, yet we won't/can't speak our mind about people we have negative personnal experience of, even if we believe them to be ten times worse that Parelli etc...
OK we could be lying/exaggerating/have a personnal vendetta against someone but one person's slating only gathers worthwhile weight when others turn out to share the same opinion. So why is it that you cannot express bad experiences and name names? If someone is lying etc... surely everyone would just leap to the defence of the criticised person and a fair balance would be maintained.
Any thoughts???