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?

--
Skipper

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. 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.

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

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. 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.


Trivia of the Day: Did you know that many people who fundamentally
dislike who and what they are project their own worst faults onto
others
and take out their self-loathing by critcizing those estranged flaws
from a third person perspective? The only real cure for this, I
believe, is to stop with all the projecting and deal with the problems
internally. Should you meet somebody with this problem, encourage them
to seek medical help. A skilled therapist can do wonders. It's never
too late for an adult to modify his/her behavior.

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

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.

wrote:

I'm not going to waste any more of my time with your deluded madness,
Psuedo.

Not surprised you refuse to discuss. Now I know what you meant when you
said it would evolve into a he said she said debate. You truly are a
scumbag.

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).

Do you think we can finds posts from you stating that meeting Skipper
was a positive experience? Suppose only you and I will really KNOW if I
accepted your solicitation to be my "representative in the NW." We both
know what you did with that authorization. You will have to live with
that knowledge. I believe most NG readers can figure it out and wonder
how they would feel if they got backstabbed by some shyster.

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.

Yep, you are a class act, Chucky.

--
Skipper

wrote in message
oups.com...


Ignoring all the BS, do you still doubt this is the "real" Skipper?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Ignoring all the BS, do you still doubt this is the "real" Skipper?

Eisboch

When the initial attack thread was posted, ("Open letter....."),
I was extremely surprised. I had some doubts that Dave Mann would do
such a total and radical about-face- and after about a five-year time
span. Spoofing other posters' ID is a common game in rec.boats,
particularly among a group of non-boaters who hang out here to take pot
shots at Harry Krause, (or anybody else they perceive as slightly left
of Zell Miller). I wanted to believe that Dave had more integrity.
Until recently, my opinion of him was somewhat "mixed": a weird guy
with a few definite problems but maybe not such a bad guy in his heart
of hearts. His latest antics have proven me wrong, and unfortunately to
his additional discredit.

When another poster with a long history of dogging me 'round and
generating attack posts happened to use exactly the same very unique
format as the opening of the "Open letter..." about a week later, I
naturally suspected a common authorship. (I apologized for posting that
suspicion on the NG).

Sadly enough, I now believe that this obviously sick and troubled
individual is the original Dave Mann. What a shame. His acid remarks
used to be tempered by a bit of good humor, and that is no longer the
case. Therefore, I will continue to address Mr. Mann as Psuedo Skipper;
as most of his boating adventures are flights of fantasy and he is now
but a poor shadow of his former self. His grammar is awful, his insults
crude, and some of his behavior (exhibited in the "Harry and Chuckie"
thread, for example) is extremely juvenile. I do wonder whether the
poor old fart had a stroke or something, Psuedo is not the Skipper of
old. The worst aspects of his quirky persona are still there, but the
glitter is long gone.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Ignoring all the BS, do you still doubt this is the "real" Skipper?

Eisboch


snip
.....I now believe that this obviously sick and troubled
individual is the original Dave Mann.

snip


Good. I will wait for a proper apology from you for your whopper of a lie
about me.

*JimH* wrote:

Good. I will wait for a proper apology from you for your whopper of a lie
about me.

You'll be waiting a long time for an apology from that swadifying pond
scum. This is the lying spinmeister Chuckie that I know:
http://tinyurl.com/8tt8k

--
Skipper

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Ignoring all the BS, do you still doubt this is the "real" Skipper?

Eisboch


snip
.....I now believe that this obviously sick and troubled
individual is the original Dave Mann.

snip


Good. I will wait for a proper apology from you for your whopper of a lie
about me.


I jumped to a hasty conclusion based upon some rather convincing
evidence.
(Past behavior and the coincidental use of an identical and extremely
unusual posting format). Even Smithers noted that he would have
suspected your hand in the matter, but he drew some other conclusions
based upon something he noticed in the header. I should not have
expressed my conclusion, but I did.
I have already apologized for that. That's what I did wrong, so that's
the apology you get. Reaching the conclusion was an error, not a lie,
and in any case I should have kept it to myself, (as I do most of my
opinions about you and your behavior).

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Ignoring all the BS, do you still doubt this is the "real" Skipper?

Eisboch


snip
.....I now believe that this obviously sick and troubled
individual is the original Dave Mann.

snip


Good. I will wait for a proper apology from you for your whopper of a lie
about me.

Maybe you should apologize for your many, many lies, insults, slander,
and general tone that you've taken here. Want me to post the lies
you've told about me?