![]() |
Skipper Reports on His Boat shopping......
From October 2001:
I've shared that tale with the NG previously. 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. A few weeks went by as the Admiral made convincing arguments for the Northcoast. I called the broken to make an offer and was told the boat had just been sold. Had we retained Chuck to represent our interests, I believe that disappointment could have been avoided. Two more weeks went by as I made the case for the Skookum in Anacortes. The Admiral finally relented and I called the listing broker. Good news, the boat was still available and as the boat had been for sale for over a year with no takers, the broker thought our offer would be accepted. He called the next day to say he had spoken with the owner's wife and that she had accepted the deal pending her husbands return (was ferrying a Nordhavn to Hawaii). We thought the deal was done. A week passed with no new information so I started calling daily. We were repeatedly told to rest assured and that the owner's return was just a "formality", and "his wife had accepted the offer". Well, we went through 4 weeks of this uncertainty, unable to schedule reservations for the flight out to close. Finally, we called one day to learn that the broker had just gone on vacation and the boat was sold to someone else for $10,000 more than we had offered and they were returning our check. We had been lied to and this guy was using our offer to conduct an auction, IMO. I also believe that had we hired Chuck to represent our interests this sad tale could have been avoided. |
Skipper Reports on His Boat shopping......
|
Skipper Reports on His Boat shopping......
|
Skipper Reports on His Boat shopping......
jps wrote: In article .com, says... From October 2001: I've shared that tale with the NG previously. So, one more time... Excuse my ignorance but I don't understand your point in posting this... jps Then you must have missed Psuedo Skipper Cave Mann's latest mission in his otherwise meaningless life. He spends his days thinking of not-so-clever ways to continuously restate that he was disgusted with my immediately transparent hucksterism and dishonesty- qualities that he claims were oozing from every pore during our first meeting in Seattle and our second meeting, many months or maybe even a year later. If I choose to respond, my choices are to either engage in a you said/Did not, you said/ did not, you said/did not cycle jerk or simply post the evidence that puts the LIAR's hat squarely on Cave Mann's oh-so-deserving head. Yes, it's true that when asked "Were you lying then, or lying now?" he insists he was lying then- but the liar's hat remains in place even so. (If Cave Mann the Psuedo Skipper found me such a transparent "shyster", it's amazing that he sought another meeting with me on his second shopping trip.) The plain truth of the matter is that Cave Mann felt the urge to wade into the NG and begin attacking one of the "rad/libs", and invented this pretense, based on two meetings of at least 5 years ago, as an excuse. He has shown himself to be truly as pathetic as most people consider him to be. I'm willing to let most of his his racist remarks, his anti-semitic remarks, his John Birch Society/ PNAC perspective on the world, and the generally disruptive behavior of this wanna-be sal****er boater from the heart of KS slide, but when he decides to launch a personal campaign with me in the crosshairs of his flame thrower I have the right to counter if I choose to. I chose to counter with evidence that proves, in Cave Mann's own unimpeachable words from the public record, that the dishonesty he is claiming is my stock in trade is simply a projection of his own fatal flaw. It's a heck of a thing to stand up to your eyebrows in the stinking excrement of bald-faced dishonesty and cry out, "Oh look! I think so-and so might have stepped in some crap! Better check the bottom of his shoes!" Only a prick without a shred of conscience thinks there's a good answer to the question, "were you lying then, or lying now?" He says he was lying then. I know he's lying now. Oh well, at least he's consistent. |
Skipper Reports on His Boat shopping......
|
Skipper Reports on His Boat shopping......
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 |
Skipper Reports on His Boat shopping......
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. |
Skipper Reports on His Boat shopping......
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. |
Skipper Reports on His Boat shopping......
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com