Harry Krause wrote:

From his years of posting here, and from my personal contact with him,
I have concluded Chuck is an honorable man.

Oh, you've had business dealings with Chuckie. Now that is interesting.
And when it comes to honorable men, you have a lot of nerve considering
yourself as a judge of that trait.

--
Skipper

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:

From his years of posting here, and from my personal contact with him,
I have concluded Chuck is an honorable man.

Oh, you've had business dealings with Chuckie. Now that is interesting.
And when it comes to honorable men, you have a lot of nerve considering
yourself as a judge of that trait.


I is appropriate that harry considers chuck honorable.........considering
what a proven liar harry is......and the "birds of a feather" thing :-)

--
Skipper

wrote:

None of the many comments he posted to this same NG following his
trips to Seattle contained anything except glowing remarks about his
experiences when dealing with me...Whether he was lying then or lying
now doesn't really matter.

Yes, I did defend you from several NG contributors who had problems with
your honesty and integrity. I was wrong to have done that. A scoundrel
is a scoundrel.

So, tell us about those parties were you sat around with drinking buds
and the wife's telling tales about Skipper. That should provide further
insight into your exemplary character. We certainly wouldn't want you to
be misunderstood.

--
Skipper

Harry Krause wrote:

I've been here for many years and have never encountered a poster who
had business dealings with Chuck that were anything but honorable.

Then I would suggest your reading comprehension is a bit too shallow.

You're really a pretty low life form, fella. No wonder you're cavorting
with the likes of Hertvik, Herring, Smithers, and the rest of the
scumbags. Birds of a feather.

What, do they lie about the ownership of fab Zimmermanlike 36' lobster
boats, flame assorted NG readers, spew political hate, and generally act
like flaming "rectal fissures"? Oh, the shame of it.

BTW, that's quite an enemies list you've developed there, Krause.

--
Skipper

Harry,
I would guess Chuck would prefer not to have your endorsement.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Skipper wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

Skipper wrote:
wrote:

So, one more time... We became interested in two boats in the Seattle
area a while back. One was a 53 Skookum and the other was a 48
Northcoast, two completely different boats. Chuck had offered to
represent our interests for boats in this area. However, I felt an
obligation to the brokers we had previously made contact with and
continued negotiating with the Northcoast and Skookum brokers. The
admiral preferred the Northcoast and I preferred the Skookum.

Again...a couple questions, Chuckie. Did I *specifically* ask you to
check into the Northcoast by visiting the selling broker and boat (a
few
hundred yards down the road from your location on Lake Union)? What did
you do about that request? Was that proper and ethical conduct for a
buyer's broker?

Chuck 250
pseudoSkipper 0

You lost, turdbrain.

It's a simple question and goes to the heart of this shysters business
and personal ethics. His answer to the question, or lack of one, should
illuminate the truth of the matter.

Oh yes, one more illuminating question for Chuckie. When you asked to be
our representative, did I give you approval? We can discuss what actions
you took with that approval. That in itself should shed some light on
the first paragraph above and your business conduct.

--
Skipper


From his years of posting here, and from my personal contact with him, I
have concluded Chuck is an honorable man.

I never thought *that* of the real Skipper. And you ain't the real
Skipper.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:42:08 -0500, Skipper wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

I've been here for many years and have never encountered a poster who
had business dealings with Chuck that were anything but honorable.

Then I would suggest your reading comprehension is a bit too shallow.

You're really a pretty low life form, fella. No wonder you're cavorting
with the likes of Hertvik, Herring, Smithers, and the rest of the
scumbags. Birds of a feather.

What, do they lie about the ownership of fab Zimmermanlike 36' lobster
boats, flame assorted NG readers, spew political hate, and generally act
like flaming "rectal fissures"? Oh, the shame of it.

BTW, that's quite an enemies list you've developed there, Krause.

If I were in Chuck's shoes, I'd sure as hell *not* want a ringing endorsement of
my integrity from Harry Krause!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Skipper wrote:
wrote:

A couple questions, Chuckie. Did I *specifically* ask you to check into
the Northcoast by visiting the selling broker and boat? What did you do
about that request?

Yes. I don't recall the name "Northcoast", but there was some
discussion about a boat for which you were already in the process of
formulating a purchase offer.

The truth is I had only looked at the boat and asked you to visit the
boat and broker as my agent. You agreed to do this...but did nothing.

You have to remember that I did business with hundreds of buyers and
sellers, while you dealt with only a few brokers. Your memory of
minute details, (such as the make of the boat) should be better than
mine.

Weak. Actually, the lame excuse of a scoundrel...a used car salesman.

I told you immediately that the process was too far along for another
broker to become involved.

You did NOT! You agreed to look into the boat.

A broker has to represent either the seller or the buyer in a
transaction. The boat you were interested in was not my listing,
therefore I could not represent the seller. You had already
entered discussions with another broker in another brokerage regarding
the purchase of this boat. There was no role in your prospective
transaction for a third broker. See your own words above; even you felt
"obliged" to the broker you had already contacted about the boat. (as
you should have)

Is that why you agreed to look into the boat as my representative?

I told you that if the deal didn't go through that I would be happy to
present offers on future boats in the Pac. NW, but that under the
co-brokerage rules in the industry I needed to be involved at the
beginning of the process, not called upon halfway through the deal.

You did nothing of the kind. You agreed to look into the boat.

I may have offered to take a look at the boat and render an opinion if I
were in the town where the boat was for sale on some other business in
the near future, and while that seems like something I would have I
don't specifically remember several years later whether I did or did
not make such an offer. I know that I never looked at the boat- but it
was not in Seattle and I wasn't about to waste most of a day on a
specific round trip to see the boat. (Without any official role in the
transaction- there is no guarantee that the listing broker would have
even let me aboard the boat. In fact, there could be an excellent
argument advanced that since the boat was in the fiduciary care of the
seller's agent it was that broker's repsonsibilty to keep extraneous
people *off* the boat). There was no way that I could or should become
officially involved in the middle of your transaction at that point in
time.

The boat was not out of town. The boat was only a few hundred yards down
the road on Lake Union. You may take refuge by stating you're confused
now, but you were NOT confused at the time. Again, any negotiations
about a purchase contract for that boat were to be handled by you. But
first, you were specifically asked to see if they would be willing to
split the commission. Did you forget that little detail?

Trivia of the Day: ...A skilled therapist can do wonders. It's never
too late for an adult to modify his/her behavior.

An *ethical* buyer's broker would have been handier at the time. But
then, they are hard to come by, huh, Chuckie?

--
Skipper

I'm not going to waste any more of my time with your deluded madness,
Psuedo.
Not only would your present version of the truth be different from
mine, it is obviously quite different from the facts as you represented
them here several years ago. Five years ago you wrote that you regret
not engaging me as your broker, and now the story is either (a) that I
refused to act as your broker or (b) represented you in a dishonest
manner. (Depends on which med has kicked in at the moment, I guess).
Since your current stories are 180-degrees opposed to your previous
statements, I suggest that you go argue with yourself. There are some
other suggestions for activities you could pursue with yourself, but
the first one that comes to mind is biologically impossible.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message I've been here
for many years and have never encountered a poster who
had business dealings with Chuck that were anything but honorable.

Harry,
You can say the exact same thing about everyone in rec.boats.

Chuck has stated his only business dealings with anyone in rec.boats was
Dave, so except for Dave, Chuck has no business dealings with anyone in
rec.boats.

I still think Chuck would prefer if you do not give him your endorsement.

Harry Krause wrote:


You know, you might want to contact a neurosurgeon and get a scan. I've
had no "business dealings" with Chuck, nor did I imply I had. For you to
jump to that conclusion indicates you are having mental misfirings.

I wouldn't hesitate for a second to "do business" with Chuck if an
opportunity presented itself.

By the way, what boat do you own these days? I mean aside from the one
you play with in the tub.


That isn't a boat Skippy plays with in his bathtub!

wrote:
The shame, Chuck, is that you are letting someone get to you, badly.

The shame is that I went out of my way to be courteous to this guy,
despite a long history of contentious conversations, and to treat him
very professionally when he sought my help. The shame is that five
years later he chooses to capitalize on his relatively unique position
("I've met this shyster in person!") to launch a campaign of flame
throwing and crap slinging based on some out-of-the blue accusations of
dishonest dealing. None of the many comments he posted to this same NG
following his trips to Seattle contained anything except glowing
remarks about his experiences when dealing with me.

Whether he was lying then or lying now doesn't really matter. His own
words prove that he is a far bigger liar than most people could ever
aspire to become.

You can't be nice to life lying scumbags. It'll bite you in the ass
every time!