Harry,

If you are going to pretend you have me filtered, maybe it would work best
if you didn't respond to my posts even 2nd hand.

By the way, Yahoo and Comcast contacted me concerning your complaint about
me "Spamming" you. I forwarded the two emails in question and they both
realized that you were using the system to try to harass me. Since it would
be very easy to block a user it was obvious to them that you reporting me as
a SPAMMER was a feeble attempt to bring a NG disagreement out of the NG.

This is a perfect example of why NO ONE should provide personal information
in a NG. If you can try to screw someone based upon their Yahoo email,
imagine what you would try if you knew a persons name. That might have been
low for even for you.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
When I have sold or purchased boats in the past, I have written into the
contract that I or the seller would provide a clean title within 3
weeks. I then paid off the lien holder, copied the seller on the check
submitted to the lien holder and then provided him with a copy of the
title. If either party did not honor the contract, it could be resolved
in court.

I have always felt this was sufficient, but if someone's objective was
to screw me and the title was a forgery,( with today's computer is very
possible), they probably could have. Today, I think I would contact
the lien holder directly get the payoff amount, ask for a check to be
made jointly to me and the lien holder and I would mail the check to the
lien holder.




"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 12:23:54 -0500, "Reggie Smithers"

wrote:

JohnH,

Did the credit union warrant that the title was clean and clear?
Since you
purchased the boat, and used them to "borrow the money" and they were
the
lien holder, I would think it was up to you to provide them with a
clean
title, not up to them to provide you with a clean title.

Or do you mean that since the title was clean enough for the Credit
Union,
it probably was a clean title?


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 14:52:02 GMT, "Butch Davis"

wrote:

Reggie,

When buying a used boat it is critically important to absolutly know
that
the boat is legally owned by the seller and that it is free of any
liens.
Some states continue to fail to require boat titles. Alabama is one
of
those states.

As you said, the other major risk is hidden defects. New engines
and/or
major hull repair would drive the cost well above that of a new boat
with
a
warranty.

Butch
To overcome the 'title' problem, I financed the boat through the
credit
union and let
them worry about getting the correct title, etc. Then, after a couple
weeks, I paid
off the loan. Total cost to me was about $25, well worth it.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes
The credit union worked with the seller's bank to get the title. The
seller still had
a note on the boat which had to be paid off by the credit union.

To answer your second question, I guess I assumed if it was clean
enough for the
credit union, it would be clean enough for me. I figured they had some
quick and
dirty way to check a title.

How would one go about verifying a clean title?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary
to resolve it."
Rene Descartes


In California, and also Oregon, where I purchased my boat, the lien
holder is listed on the title, just like on a car.



Smithers must patronize "Midnight Boat Sales."

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
Harry,

If you are going to pretend you have me filtered, maybe it would work best
if you didn't respond to my posts even 2nd hand.

By the way, Yahoo and Comcast contacted me concerning your complaint
about me "Spamming" you. I forwarded the two emails in question and they
both realized that you were using the system to try to harass me. Since
it would be very easy to block a user it was obvious to them that you
reporting me as a SPAMMER was a feeble attempt to bring a NG disagreement
out of the NG.

This is a perfect example of why NO ONE should provide personal
information in a NG. If you can try to screw someone based upon their
Yahoo email, imagine what you would try if you knew a persons name. That
might have been low for even for you.



Too late for me. I was stalked by Harry till he found out my real name, my
wife's name. He then made a couple of threats to me and went to the extent
of getting a picture of our house.

I am sure he has a full file of information on me now.

Why does a person do this?

The point isn't that Harry tried to get my ISP to cancel my account due to a
violation in the TOS, but if someone will do that when the only information
he knows his a Yahoo Account and your ISP, you can imagine what damage
someone can do if they knew more info.

I would remind everyone to keep ALL personal information out of Newsgroups.


" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOTcom wrote in message
. ..

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...
Harry,

If you are going to pretend you have me filtered, maybe it would work
best if you didn't respond to my posts even 2nd hand.

By the way, Yahoo and Comcast contacted me concerning your complaint
about me "Spamming" you. I forwarded the two emails in question and they
both realized that you were using the system to try to harass me. Since
it would be very easy to block a user it was obvious to them that you
reporting me as a SPAMMER was a feeble attempt to bring a NG disagreement
out of the NG.

This is a perfect example of why NO ONE should provide personal
information in a NG. If you can try to screw someone based upon their
Yahoo email, imagine what you would try if you knew a persons name. That
might have been low for even for you.



Too late for me. I was stalked by Harry till he found out my real name,
my wife's name. He then made a couple of threats to me and went to the
extent of getting a picture of our house.

I am sure he has a full file of information on me now.

Why does a person do this?

Reggie Smithers wrote:

Harry,

If you are going to pretend you have me filtered, maybe it would work best
if you didn't respond to my posts even 2nd hand.

By the way, Yahoo and Comcast contacted me concerning your complaint about
me "Spamming" you. I forwarded the two emails in question and they both
realized that you were using the system to try to harass me. Since it would
be very easy to block a user it was obvious to them that you reporting me as
a SPAMMER was a feeble attempt to bring a NG disagreement out of the NG.

This is a perfect example of why NO ONE should provide personal information
in a NG. If you can try to screw someone based upon their Yahoo email,
imagine what you would try if you knew a persons name. That might have been
low for even for you.

I know from personal experience that Krause Will use any info against
you.

--
Skipper

Skipper wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:


Harry,


If you are going to pretend you have me filtered, maybe it would work best
if you didn't respond to my posts even 2nd hand.


By the way, Yahoo and Comcast contacted me concerning your complaint about
me "Spamming" you. I forwarded the two emails in question and they both
realized that you were using the system to try to harass me. Since it would
be very easy to block a user it was obvious to them that you reporting me as
a SPAMMER was a feeble attempt to bring a NG disagreement out of the NG.



This is a perfect example of why NO ONE should provide personal information
in a NG. If you can try to screw someone based upon their Yahoo email,
imagine what you would try if you knew a persons name. That might have been
low for even for you.


I know from personal experience that Krause Will use any info against
you.

--
Skipper

I what way?

Dan