First, because this isn't the first thread about PRCA rodeo that you have picked on ME about! And, if you think I brag about rodeo, just watch JJ Hampton or Jackie Crawford (Breakaway) when they win a round or a rodeo. JJ missed her calf at one rodeo last week and she proceeded down the area waving at the crowd anyway. She has a lot of charisma and we both love it. Sorry, Faye, but both of us do know a lot about rodeo and, without a doubt, we can keep a conversation up with any induction member of the Pro-Rodeo Hall of Fame and their families. We've done it before. I know PRCA rodeo and you know ranching/ranch rodeo. I went to a Roping School in Norco, California put on by Lifetime PRCA member, Jim Brooks. What I do, and I believe Yvonne understands this, is, I ask questions/make comments about rodeo, because, very few on this forum know about PRCA rodeo or even care about it. When I feel that someone is like "slapping me in the face" concerning a sport/event that I was involved in, I don't react very kindly. Sort of like how you react if someone was to put-down ranching. I do want to thank you for your replies, but PLEASE remember, my wife and I aren't you and don't think like you. If we don't want to work, due to being unpaid, we surely don't have to. Volunteer work is great, but it definitely doesn't pay any everyday bills.
Please stop. Both of you. You both have a right to your opinions, but it would help if they weren't directed at one another. Conversely, I think that being too easily offended also comes into play. I have all kinds of opinions about people based on any number of variables, some of which I can support and some of which I cannot. Generally, I try not to give voice to the ones that I can't support but I have the right to do so, and probably will if someone asks or if I'm feeling in the mood to do so. While it might be nice if everyone always agreed with me, that could also be scary, so I don't expect it. As you might have noticed, I have a problem with people who think they should be believed or trusted simply because they hold a credential. In my opinion, if you can't persuade me with facts and reason, your credential isn't going to help. I was a licensed building inspector, and I never did learn a damned thing about construction. I was licensed because I can read and I'm good at tests. Other people have credentials simply because they grew up in a family with the money necessary to buy the credentials. Others, of course, deserve them, but they would be the ones who would be able to dazzle me with actual knowledge. Feel free to trot out your credentials if you think they might bolster your argument, or because you're proud of them, but if the argument isn't sound it's not going to carry the day with everyone. On the other hand, you might prefer not to take the time to deliberate upon the argument, and instead yield to whoever has the credentials. That's up to you, but others might be dismissive of that kind of reasoning. It's not personal, and it shouldn't be personal, but if I want to discuss a subject, adding up credentials just doesn't play into it. You both want to be recognized as experts in rodeoing, if that's actually a word. Grammarly doesn't seem to think that it is. But rather than arguing over who has the best credentials, why can't you simply discuss the topic and let your words carry the day without trying to beat one another over the head with it. Why does it have to be personal? I have strong opinions about a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that I'm right and everyone else is stupid (or at least I wouldn't say that outright). You both know something about what you're talking about, but your experiences or perceptions differ on some things. Why does that have to become an argument? If I say that I think that older men look silly when they go out in public wearing shorts, that's not a personal attack on any of you who might feel comfortable going out in shorts. If you were to post a picture of yourself wearing shorts, you might be able to take it as such if I told you that you looked silly, but I probably wouldn't do that unless I thought I knew you well enough to believe that my opinion wasn't going to offend you. For the record, I sometimes go out in public wearing shorts but I know that I look silly; there are times when comfort wins out. By now, I hope that I have bored you both to the point where you have forgotten all about your arguments and can go back to simply talking about county fairs and such.
All I can say, Ken, is thanks. Things were getting somewhat out-of-hand no matter who was at fault. I like this forum way, way to much to quit. I've learned so much about myself (believe it or not) as well as other members.
I don't think there are very many here who want you to. We're human, so we're all going to get annoyed with one another from time to time, and we're all probably going to annoy one another sometimes.
I wanted you to ask about horsepower!!! Anyway, I'd get on a horse before I'd get on a motorcycle (not that I have an issue with horses.) I'd stand a much greater chance of surviving, if for no other reason than the horse has a better survival instinct than a bike does.
Naw! There are plenty of folks that will make a comment about a "10-Gallon Hat", but I've never seen someone wearing one before. Guess they are famous in Texas, don't know. Large trophy buckles are given to winners of a major rodeo. I've seen trophy buckles that are fairly big. Winners of an event are extremely proud to get one. We know one former rodeo cowboy, getting ready to go into the Hall of Fame, that has won 23 World Champion buckles.
@Ken Anderson I am not happy that you unfairly place equal blame on me for this thread becoming another battle with Cody getting his ego hurt and his publically complaining to you about me and even questioning why you weren't intervening sooner. If you care to review this entire thread, which I doubt you do, or care to waste your time on such a trivial matter, you will find that it wasn't me that started the "fight" and Cody feeling I was picking on him because of his rodeo expertise was his imagination. He started the accusations. It is really clear to me that others were trying to reason with him over his opinion of the Laraine County fair theme. I should have just passed up on his thread like I have many of his before. I feel the record needs to be set straight. I do not want to be known as a rodeo expert! Expressing my experiences being around rodeo my entire life, 71 years. and being part of a rodeo family dating back to the first rodeo (Prescott) where constants were paid and admission was charged, should not be misinterpreted as wanting to be a rodeo expert. I don't equate knowledge about anything with memberships or credentials. Again, I do NOT want to be known as an expert on rodeo. There is no contest here for me with anyone. This thread went arie when Cody threw out the term "Buckle Bunny" a term seldom if ever heard before the internet existed and has its roots solid in the Urban Dictionary. I understand that it is common on the internet for many to use the jargon of a discipline to build credentials. Being on several specialty forums in the past, it was easy to spot those that really had the expertise and those that blew hot air. Example from a hard rock mining forum: "Yeah, I worked in that shaft for months" when the topic was about a mine that was all a "drift" ( horizontal) mine with drifts being connected by vertical holes called a "winze." A winze is not a shaft, a vertical hole that deadends, any more than a drift is a tunnel that is open at two ends. That is jargon that is specific to miners, just like "to dally" is a term used by ropers using a loop around their saddle horn so they can give slack after roping a calf, steer, or bull. That same action in other disciplines might have other names such as a "slip hitch." So when I hear or read the term "buckle bunny" it is clear to me that one is just using modern-day URBAN jargon to build a credential. It is a derogatory term, one of judgment meant to boost a rodeo cowboy's status. Actual females that follow rodeo circuits for the sole purpose of having sex with rodeo stars can be compared with the females that followed famous rock singers for that same purpose. These were known as groupies and many times included males. Females that follow male rodeo buckle winners around with the sole purpose of having sex are few and far between. Many of these females dress just like other female fans, many times in full-length jeans and high-neck tops, maybe even wearing running shoes or sandals. Buckle Bunny is a stereotype, a way of judging females that might dress comfortably for the weather that day. Judging anyone to label them by the way they are dressed is pure ignorance and arrogance. Judging a scantly young female watching and enjoying a rodeo differs from one dressed the same way standing on a poorly lit street corner in the red light district. Judging them the same can lead to exposing one's ignorance and judgmental attitude. Why don't we have a term for rodeo cowboys working the chutes in jeans so tight that their tobacco can is smashed? The male rodeo fans that remove their shirts on a hot day? Certainly, these guys are there for other reasons than the love of rodeo if we use the urban way of thinking. The discussion took a bad turn with Cody's statement. "Last night, we were watching the final go-around of Weatherford, Texas's Parker County Sheriff's Posse Rodeo. It was 99 degrees and seen a number of young ladies wearing shorts, very low-cut tops and a cowboy hat. To us, ridiculous, but that just our thoughts." Fair enough and just his opinion and disdain for how many young lady rodeo fans dress these days in hot weather when he thinks they should be dressed in more conservative fashion western wear. However then in jest John makes a statement that he is so offended by such dress, he can't stop looking. Then Cody introduces Buckle Bunny into the thread. "So, John, an old/older Buckle Bunny and you would get along fine, right? Don't know what a Buckle Bunny is? Look up online." I asked, what is the purpose in this thread about a county fair theme, to introduce a rodeo jargon derogatory term? Then we can all read the post, "Actually, John, a real "Buckle Bunny" is the kind of young girl that only knows, and only wants to know, "do you 2-step or Texas Swing?". As far as rodeo and/or equestrian (horses) go, they know nothing and don't want to know anything. And, on top of that, most-to-all older rodeo cowboys know about "Buckle Bunnies" and stay far away from them. Heck, the guys I knew in rodeo, had to take care of their horses after a rodeo, not head to the Rodeo Dance after the rodeo. I was already headed for home, with horse/trailer, when the dance was going on!" I recognize Cody's statement as being taken mostly from the internet with his presentation once again assuming he knows the mind and action of all OLDER cowboys. I reply in GENERAL quoting Cody's post, but not personally to Cody, and don't sugar coat my words and Cody responds with denial and making this a personal attack against him. His denial was that he didn't ever say a buckle bunny was a whore. Sure he didn't use that word but did post links that inferred the same thing. Females dressing as to expose their bodies to attract rodeo champion buckle winners into having sex. CODY "YOU said that (in red above), I sure didn't! But, you are getting rather nasty on Ken's forum here towards me. I'd watch it! My expertise is from being a PRCA Member. Faye, can use say you were a member of such a popular rodeo association?" Here he accuses me of being nasty on your forum and then a lightly veiled threat that I'd better watch it. He brags of his expertise and then taunts me with his belittling questions for which he is famous. So, any response I make turns this discussion into a competition of who is an expert. At least that is what you indicated in your wording, Ken. What about all the others? Cody doesn't have the courage to complain about all the rest that are fed up with his constant threads and post that if no one replies he is offended and if they do he takes issue if they question his many statements that are nonsensical. Any suggestion on how he might overcome a problem is met with an excuse or argument. It seems only if anyone disagrees with him about rodeo, which is usually me, then he goes into his poor me being bullied cry and help me Ken because Faye is picking on me. See everyone Yvonne agrees with me and so and so liked my response so there take that Faye. It is preschool behavior and sorry you have to spend time dealing with it. I could just go away since he is a longer time member than I and seniority seems to be a factor in pampering members. I see this as an attempt by Cody to force me to agree with him and worship him because of his self-proclaimed expertise or silence me. "I'd better watch out!" In this time of free speech being threatened and my admiration for your tolerance for allowing free speech on your forum, with the line drawn with unwarranted personal attacks, I feel like Cody is trying to silence me and his personal lightly veiled attacks against me with his constant taunting, asking questions meant to "call me out" rather than stick to the issue at hand or show some evidence of his expertise without putting others down. I decided to make this a public post rather than a personal message to you Ken because I am tired of being accused of fighting and personal attacks when I respond to a post made to purposely belittle me such as we see on this thread. Cody's original post and his opinion on the fair theme was based solely on how fair goers and the community he lives dress. Everyone that replied here failed to see Cody's point of view on why the theme the organizers picked wasn't a suitable one and why how folks dress has any bearing on observing Larimer County's history of "Cowboy Boots and Country Roots." It makes me feel silenced when I have to ignore a poster or sugarcoat my every response or be accused of quarreling. I am not asking you to do anything but stop referring to such discussions as a personal battle between me and Cody. Lots of others responded by questioning Cody's opening statement and replying post. This thread as introduced had nothing to do with rodeo. Nothing! Young ladies going to the fair in short shorts and low-cut tops has nothing to do with the URBAN cowboy Buckle Bunny jargon. The cowboy boots roots of the fair were in reference to the early cattle drives and the cowboys that worked them. Colorado has a great history with cattle and cowpokes or cowboys and the changing from open range to fenced ranches. How sad that such a thread is only several pages because of the controversy it created. Discussing Laramie County Colorado history probably wouldn't have made one page.
I didn't even take a side. I just wanted you both to stop. I would guess that only a few people in this forum would know about the term, or care, including myself. If you were looking for me to weigh in on this, I'm sorry. I'm not in a position to do that because I've never heard the term before. Would it be so difficult for you to simply say what you believe to be true, and let him do the same? I don't think there are very many others here who care. We might be interested in reading about rodeos, and there are probably some others who have some knowledge of rodeos, but not enough that we're going to get involved in ensuring the accuracy of what someone says about them. Again, I didn't take a position on anything other than that I'd like to see the thread get back to discussing the OP rather than needless bickering. No, you decided to do it publicly because you're angry with me for some reason, and you know (because I've said it several times) that I dislike needless rants in the forum, as it is nothing less than intentional disruption. Cody started the thread. The OP was his.