Have the NHA lost their marbles

they have withdrawn the name as per SP.

but VATICAN was fine a few years ago. seems inconsistent


www.formgrids.com/subscriber/fgHorseHist.aspx?hs=VATICAN,ZA

slow reader i am. did not see the thread thanks Bob

rob faux wrote:

Mac wrote: Rob Faux, you are incorrect. I respect your knowledge and intelligence but it doesnt mean that I have to agree with you and you do not irritate me. I still think your idea for a tote owned betting exchange is like a masterstroke. You've ionce nvited me for a drink at the late Mike O'Connor's which I still want to honour.

Back to the topic. Can I call my horse "f.ck" just because that word is continually beamed from Hollywood? No I can't, not because Hollywood beams it but because the NHA rules say I shan't.

Well Mac ,then lets be accurate..............the only rule that comes into play does NOT mention religion!!!!!! ..........it is rule 35-1-6 and rejects: those in bad taste or which have an unacceptable connotation IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE.(exact wording)

I suggest that the name Fu!k in your example might be generally construed as bad taste ...............a City in Texas might not have the same unanimous response!!!!!!

Rob, we never mentioned religion (correction, I did mention). Corpus Christi is latin which is, as you emphasised, IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE and is, probably, most unacceptable else there wouldnt be a need for this thread. Bad taste and unacceptable connotation must lie in the opinion of the NHRA whom we entrust to control the rule. If the racing industry does not like this rule then the rule must be modified, not for citizens of a Texas city, but for the stakeholders of our racing industry. Rules are there to be followed, else dont have them.

If we want to relate to that city in Texas (which I think has nothing to do with this) then MGM, United Artists, and all the other movie producers might, too, have all the same unanimous opinion that the word "f.ck" is not in bad taste and so why shouldn't the NHRA approve that name.

Mac wrote:

rob faux wrote:

Mac wrote: Rob Faux, you are incorrect. I respect your knowledge and intelligence but it doesnt mean that I have to agree with you and you do not irritate me. I still think your idea for a tote owned betting exchange is like a masterstroke. You've ionce nvited me for a drink at the late Mike O'Connor's which I still want to honour.

Back to the topic. Can I call my horse "f.ck" just because that word is continually beamed from Hollywood? No I can't, not because Hollywood beams it but because the NHA rules say I shan't.

Well Mac ,then lets be accurate..............the only rule that comes into play does NOT mention religion!!!!!! ..........it is rule 35-1-6 and rejects: those in bad taste or which have an unacceptable connotation IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE.(exact wording)

I suggest that the name Fu!k in your example might be generally construed as bad taste ...............a City in Texas might not have the same unanimous response!!!!!!

Rob, we never mentioned religion (correction, I did mention). Corpus Christi is latin which is, as you emphasised, IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE and is, probably, most unacceptable else there wouldnt be a need for this thread. Bad taste and unacceptable connotation must lie in the opinion of the NHRA whom we entrust to control the rule. If the racing industry does not like this rule then the rule must be modified, not for citizens of a Texas city, but for the stakeholders of our racing industry. Rules are there to be followed, else dont have them.

If we want to relate to that city in Texas (which I think has nothing to do with this) then MGM, United Artists, and all the other movie producers might, too, have all the same unanimous opinion that the word "f.ck" is not in bad taste and so why shouldn't the NHRA approve that name.

Mac,we will have to agree to disagree then...............personally I don't really care as I find too many religions are happy to kill innocent people "in the name of the lord"......................but I do wish the NHA would respond to all their other rules with equal diligence.

Hmmm... Very poor show that one member deems it necessary to tell another member to "fcuk himself" over a difference of opinions.

Harris wrote: Hmmm... Very poor show that one member deems it necessary to tell another member to "fcuk himself" over a difference of opinions.

Was pretty shocked by that tbh

If you read my post ,it was not over a difference of opinion/s but a SERIES of reactions,not with any independant opinion at all,but merely rude response.
I can hardly be accused of someone who shies away from difference of opinion ...........and, BTW was recently told to do the very same thing by a fellow clansman! :lol:
As an attempt to understand the official attitude on regulation,I have recently being interacting directly with the establishment and have found the tag of "member of the ABC forum" has been more of a disadvantage than a help, so feel free to ban me ...............I'm shortly going to ban myself anyway!

Applicable quote we should all take heed of ??

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire

good for you