Skipper Reports on His Boat shopping......

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

-- Skipper

>That's what I did wrong, so that's > the apology you get. <snip>

Your "apology" to me was nothing more than an attempt to explain why you did what you did and blame me in part for your lie.

As Skipper said, and as I suspected, you are not man enough to make a true apology.

You remain a liar in my eyes, as well as one who cannot apologize for the lie. You also are now less than a real man.

End of discussion on this Chuckie. Go back to whatever you do in your pathetic life.

Chuckies explanation of a lie is that it was an assumption.

I gave him several chances to apologize. He refused.

End of discussion on my part.

But this new one is a just plain Idiot.

Lloyd

> > But this new one is a just plain Idiot.

As many here have viewed you for years, including your buddy Krause.

You, on the other hand, Hertvik, are a turd. As is your new friend, pseudoSkippy.

Eisboch

Eisboch

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.

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

Chuck 250 pseudoSkipper 0

You lost, turdbrain. Only the scum here give you credibility, and only because they don't like Chuck's politics.

I have no idea if your nemesis is the real Skipper, or not. I'm leaning towards 'real' based on what many have posted. But, the important thing is that it should make no difference to you *what* I believe about the matter.

You're being puppy-dogged just as Krause has done me since I first disagreed with him. Finally, Krause began telling some horrendous lies, and I called him on it, telling him he was a fucking liar. Bad language, but true. Got it out of my system.

Now he's kill filed. I see his posts when someone responds to him, usually as they're telling him he's a (pick your favorite derogatory name). I can see he hangs on to many of my posts, but you know what - it doesn't bother me. It's funny. He is simply someone else begging for attention.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

"Harry Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message

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.

<atl_man2@yahoo.com> wrote in message

"Starbucker" <coffeegrinder@columbia.com> wrote in message

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 saltwater 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

-- Skipper

jps