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.

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.

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

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?

--
Skipper

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

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

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.