Re: A reply to Tom about reply to M. Stone

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/28/00 12:12:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, DebiG54 writes:

<< You mentioned "unprofessional abuses" and sited racing with an unfit horse 
as the worst of those "abuses."  Yes, I agree.  And competing with an unfit 
horse is also not good horsemanship. Yet, I reiterate, being a "professional" 
is not synonymous with good horsemanship.  A professional is simply making 
money at whatever he or she does.  Being a professional does not mean one is 
necessarily talented or smart or prepared. >

Well, we have different definitions of "professional". There are plenty of 
unprofessional people making money doing things they're not qualified to do. 
And there are plenty of professionals not making money doing what they love 
to do. 
 
 >My thinking would define a good horseman or good horsewoman as someone who 
trains and competes using the benefit of experience, knowledge, instincts, 
technology, preparation, and, dare I say it, a concern for the welfare of the 
horse. >

That's my definition of a professional.

>  This person can be an amateur or a professional.  I don't really care.  
I've invested a lot of time, energy, and emotion into this sport.  I'd like 
to see it move forward and change, but with the essence of the sport intact.  
That's why I spoke out in the first place.  
 
 Debi Gordon  >>

I can agree with you completely. 

ti