"Which I think could be misconstrued as a veiled allegation of bribery against the unnamed moderator(s)" Andrew G. Andrew, Bribery is a crime defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions as an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty. A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, a politician, or an executive or director of a corporation, has competing professional and/or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties fairly. Even if there is no evidence of improper actions, a conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the ability of that person to act properly. I think you are way off......I alluded to a "conflict of Interest" and I beleive that that is the case. Your Bribery statement is a long shot by anyones definition. I believe I showed an "appearance of impropriety"......nothing more. Paul Your Michael Jackson's case analogy was pretty lame....no really lame!
We should all remember there is a BIG difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". There are times when they are not even close.
"Stick" was going to fix your heads, for practice........how did that work out??? *trying to see some sense in this thread* Really, if you don't build your own website, you should hire someone to do it or at least send Rob Lay some Holiday whiskey as 'thanks' for giving you a constant soapbox to 'save the Ferrari world, from the ravages of Kermit'. I do appreciate your efforts to be a 'sheperd to the flock', don;t misunderstand.......but I listen to this type of character smear at FCA meetings all the time.......after awhile I wish they 'd just 'let it go'...... Get some new parts......drive on. BT
I'd like to go on-record by saying that I have done business with Kermitt as well, and have been happy with all of my purchases and service. I would do business with him again in the future if I felt like it. Sloan/Paul hasn't convinced me to do otherwise. I also remember a thread/deal in the works about Sloan/Paul working with 'Stick' to get his heads fixed. I also remember some posts from 'Stick' about his troubles not being all that serious. No updates?
When a expert machinist ports into your water jackets in multiple area's I would call that serious. This thread was started not to discuss my past issues with Durable 1 but to show legal docs of his latest issue with a someone other than me. Seems Tillman and a few others have missed that point. My Engine is done with replacement heads. Paul
Not trying to be shepard but i do get your point. I figure the few that continue to do business with Kermit are not worth the effort but the many who learn from what has been posted makes it well worth the harassment from the blind followers. The truth is that those who profess their allegiance to Durable 1 have really done no major business with the company they just defend him mostly to counter me. Sort of sad I think.
That's MY point - 'Stick' said that this sometimes happens, it CAN be fixed for not much money, get over it. He even made the offer to fix it for you just to prove his point. I was wondering if you took him up on his offer or not. Sure, the items/services I purchased were small. They were good quality, they did the job I wanted them to do, they were inexpensive, and they arrived VERY quickly. I've talked to Kermitt on the phone about the products I was buying, he was knowledgable, helpful, and no issues arose. That's just MY experience with Durable 1, and nothing you've posted can change that. I'm not saying you are wrong, I am saying my experiences were wildly different than yours. I'm a happy customer.
My point proven. Now send him your car, engine or heads.... That I know you will never do My last conversation with "Tim the stick" was that all efforts to date had not worked and that he was going to try a type of submersion (under water) welding. That was a few months ago.
I dont know either party involved in this, but looking in from the outside a few things come clear. On most websites, they restrict allegations and flaming and negative publicity of a vendor to first hand experiences. I think that is a good idea. It seems some documents were posted by a guy who has nothing to do with that case, and the only reason I can think of why they would be posted is to damage the guy who the documents make look bad. Ok, fine, but unless the guy who BROUGHT that suit is here and chiming in, it's silly for this guy to post them as "proof" of anything. In most cases like this one party is flaming the other and it's only one party participating. Here we have three parties - the two who actually went to court are both not part of the thread, and the guy who is fighting the battle ain't even involved in the case! In addition, it seems this guy feels the moderators prevented him from saying his piece. There are other members who say he's been polluting the whole board by saying his piece everywhere anyone will listen. When he's been censored, he is crying foul. From the outside, without knowing every detail, it sure looks like this Sloan guy is just trying to dig up dirt on this person/business for nothing more than revenge. I think its a very good idea that negative postings about a business be limited to first hand experiences *only* and this "look what I dug up" stuff is silly and shouldn't be allowed to fly.
If I recollect correctly, Sloan was told to stop any further attacks, without first showing proof of a court case he was involved in, and to post that information once. So what does he do, he digs up some mechanics lien garbage for someone totally unrelated to him or his troubles, and makes a bitc$ing post to further his assault. But as long as I am going to be labeled a Kermit warrior, so be it. When Kermit was banned in the middle of the 4.1 liter engine discussion, I cried foul. I felt that some kind of underhanded good ol boy stuff was going on between Nick and the moderators, and this was when Sloans real attacks that I first seen, started. The old "kick him when he is down" thing. Upon further discussion, it was brought out that Kermit had been banned on something totally unrelated, a simple rule breaking by emailing people to offer his services. So I gave up my idea of cronyism. I appologise for even thinking that stuff existed, and I find it refreshing that it doesnt. But now over a year later, Sloan, with no physical court evidence to back up his own case, finds sketchy court records of someone else, and makes some bold unwarrented claims that are not even brought to light by a court, and furthers his attack. This case has no bearing on Sloan in any way, shape, or form. Actually when all this garbage came up a year ago, I got numerous emails from Sloan trying to plead his side. But the difference was, Kermit had court records and showed them right here on Fchat. Sloan signed a release to Kermit, absolving Kermit of any responsibility, and its signed by Sloans attorney. That should have closed this case long ago. Sloan was going to have a set of heads he claimed were his, sent to a fellow out east to be inspected, to further his claim. That was six months ago, dropped like a lead ball I guess. Again and again Sloan was asked to supply evidence, and time and time again, he provides nothing but insults and inuendo. Kermit on the other hand, has provided proof at least twice that I know of, on Fchat. How many more times should he be expected to defend himself here? If this fellow who got his car taken away by Kermit cant subscribe to this forum and provide his own evidence, why does Sloan feel the need? So Kermit got a mechanics lien, so what? When Kermit got banned, I almost left Fchat, because of what I thought I had seen. But eventually I ended up speaking with Kermit, and he admitted what got him banned, and that it had nothing but coincidence to do with the 4.1 liter thread. He got his hands slapped, learned the rules, and moved along. But Sloan has this axe to grind, and cant put up, or shut up, either one. So after all the dust settles, I see this whole thing this way. If I am wrong, then so be it. And now, the rest of the story..... It is my understanding Kermit and Nick Forza shared a buisness relationship in Washington state, in Kermits shop, using mostly Kermits equipment. At some point, they parted company, and some kind of vendetta began wherin Nick has been trying to shut down Kermit so he can prosper. I also believe, that Sloan presented Kermit with a set of heads, that may not have been from his car, that were so far corroded they may have been off a fire car. It is possible this was done purposfully. After spending countless hours of labor trying to do custom head work on these, and advising Sloan they were going to be hard to fix, Sloan demanded them returned, while at the same time refusing to pay any labor. Nick mysteriously hands Sloan a good pair of heads for free, while adding that Kermit ruined Sloans heads. Sloan had an opportunity, last summer of '05, to send these heads he claimed Kermit wrecked to some guy out east. Somehow this never materialised. Guys, there isnt even any way at this time to link a set of heads to any particular car, so I feel that case should be dropped. Now Sloan provides us someone elses car troubles? It is my further understanding, that this car Sloan has presented with his court evidence in this thread, was also worked on by Nick. Is this why Sloan has knowledge of it? Is there some kind of back door deal going between these two, to push Kermit out of the picture? Why did Sloan know of this car? Why is Nick involved? Kermits feelings on this latest deal is he dont really care anymore. He has provided his evidence, Sloan hasnt, but this garbage continues. Does anyone really think Kermit can say, do, or provide anything that will stop this abuse? He doesnt. I certainly dont. How about you moderators? Have we all had enough of this yet? There is some bigger picture that none of us can see, with other players in the background beyond Sloan and Kermit. I think if you open your eyes, and ask some deeper questions, maybe the real truth will materialise.
Krowbar, Thought you quit FC and went home. Paul PS.95% of your last post is pure nonsense and Lying is not a good trait.....You just posted that Kermit showed you court records in my issue with him???? That's stange as there was never ever a court involved in any way shape of form.......GOTCHA YOU! Please show me any "Court" records of my issue with Kermit. Court means Court of Law: District, State or Local Also my Attorney never signed anything.....keep making stuff up You have no credibility.
I'll counter here and tell you flat out that receiving a product gratis with the intent of doing an impartial evaluation, is NOT "bribery". It is done in the normal course of many different businesses with only the most honorable of intentions and standard marketing efforts. In fact, if you choose to provide something to someone intending to publish their opinions and then they don't like it, you're putting yourself and your company/product at risk of negative exposure. Have you never seen a negative review of a product? For an example of one in my own case, see www.fca-se.org/conc_5.htm which is a reprints of one of my columns from the FCA NewsBulletin, and you'll see a lot of negative info about Crystal Guard, one of those companies that sent me product to evaluate. Another published article was when I did an evaluation of radar jammers, also all provided gratis by the manufacturers. You can see the reprint at www.ferrariclub.com/faq/jammers.html. Some didn't do much at all, some did very well. It was presented impartially with actually data. I get promotional copies of detaling products, software products, computer hardware products, engine products, and others in my various lines of work. If I like one, I say so. If I don't like one, I say so. To imply bribery if I get an evaluation unit from Hill Engineering, Langka, Leatherique, Microsoft, Novell, Zaino Brothers, Ferrari North America, or Durable 1 or any other company is absurd and unjust, regardless of whether I'm an FChat moderator or writer of a magazine column or a computer/software reseller.
Mike, It was Andrew G who brought up bribery and I agree that it is the most ludicrous statement yet (see my complete post in this thread responding to Andrew G). I stand by the "appearance of impropriety" but have clearly stated that there is no evidence of anything taking place. I think as a tech moderator should not involve yourself in threads where you no longer a neutral party. Sorry if you disagree. Paul
For anyone interested in the other side (I know, what's the point, neverending story here)... this is from memory, you guys can argue all you want without me... I remember when this was going on b/c Kermit was taking care of the machine work for my block, doing the decks, replacing the studs, etc. This guy was into him for X thousand dollars and fell off the face of the earth. Kermit and him had decided what work he wanted done, shipped the car all the way to Washington, etc. and Kermit started in on it. He had the car so no downpayment was necessary. So a couple months later, with regular correspondence going on the whole time, Kermit's invested X hours and parts into the guys 308 and looks for a remediation of billing to that point and the guy just disappears. Kermit calls him everyday for a few weeks, emails him until his email-box is full and wont accept anymore, etc. So what does is he supposed to do? Sure, he has the guy's 308, but that doesn't pay the overhead to run a shop. So, after having this guy's car with no word (and having stopped working on it, although he was still storing it indoors all the time) for like 4 or 5 months IIRC, Kermit filed a lien. So after like half to 3/4 of a year with no word Kermit moves towards getting the title because he's been sitting on the bill, and storage with absolutely (I mean absolutely, like as in trying to call the moon) no contact back from the guy. Out of nowhere, the guy pops back up and calls him with a story about his grandmother getting sick back in the Middle East, him travelling over there to take care of her, etc. It was real sketch. If you had a $40k Ferrari sitting in Washington, you'd think you'd pick up the phone once in 6 months or so and check how the mechanic is doing with it. I mean, do they have no phones in the entire Middle East? Then the guy went on with a sob story about how his landlord is trying to evict him b/c he hasn't paid his rent this whole time, etc. so he doesn't know when he can come up with the $$ to make good on the 308's bills. That's how all this started, I'm not sure where it ended. If I was Kermit, I would've been pretty pissed at that point. Kermit has been 100% up front and honest with me, and jumped through some big hoops as well. I'd recommend him to anyone (assuming of course you're not gonna dump your car on him and leave it for a year with no word).
Paul Bribery / "appearance of impropriety" doesnt matter what a lawyer or Barrister would call it, you were implying the moderator had received goods or services in return for the corruption of his indepence. Brett Cool post, nice to see there are always 2 sides to every story.
I *do* disagree. Just because someone is a moderators doesn't mean we can't involve ourselves in a thread AS A PARTICPANT in an area we moderate. And the point I was making is that I *am* a neutral party/participant in that sense. As they say on CSI, "the evidence is just the evidence". If I run a dyno for my own curiosity using Tommy Cosgrove's parts, parts provided by Kermit, parts provided by the shop Steven uses, or whatever, "the data is just the data".
I still don't get it. This Sloan guy is NOT involved in the story that is shown in the court documents - so why is he being allowed to post it in an effort to slam the Durable 1 company? It's not that we are only hearing one side - we are hearing one guy's INTERPRETATION of one side. Seems whacky to me. Not only that, from that this guy Brett posted, it seems there is a LOT more to the story than meets the eye. We don't know the whole story on that court case, and neither does Sloan, he is just posting it in an attempt to get revenge on this company who apparently wronged him. From what I can tell, he was told to post evidence or stop with the bashing. So, he found an unrelated case and is using that to continue the bashing. Why is this being allowed to continue? I don't get it.
Mike, thanks for the suggestion about not doing "3rd party bashing", so to speak. I think that's excellent and it's been put forward for consideration of being an official FChat policy.
EVERY COIN HAS TWO SIDES. Unfortunately, having a cold turn into Pneumonia has delayed a response to some pretty serious allegations, however as I am starting to get my health back, I will take a moment to clarify a few misunderstandings. For those of you who are as tired of this as I am, I would respectfully suggest that you simply close this thread, and enjoy another. I do not wish to drag a bunch of mud up, nor start another flame war. I do however wish to present a simple response, showing court documents that illustrate a completely different perspective. It is my goal to put this right, and in that respect, I would state: The cars owner was as Bret M stated, more than a bit difficult to deal with. His unexpected absence came at a time that the new motor had just been installed, and there was much to be adjusted to compensate for various system changes, and modifications. Mr. Abdi had expressed a desire to visit his mother in Ethiopia, for the Christmas holidays, and as I had at the time just lost my mother (about 2 weeks prior) I encouraged him, to travel. It was made abundantly clear that I still needed to maintain daily contact with him to decide how he wished to approach different problems as they arose. I was assured he would have telephone, as well as internet access, so this would not be a problem, and his return would be shortly after the New Years anyway. That was the last communication I had, for what was to become a long time. After a month went by, with all efforts to contact him failing, I started to charge daily storage, as the vehicle was obviously not an ongoing project, and needed to be dealt with. 4 Months went by, and still not a single word, letter, or any contact. As I had a considerable amount of time and funds tied up in the venture, I filed a lien, with the County Auditor. After finally getting a phone call, the project was brought back to active and work to finish began. I found the owner to be more than a bit difficult to deal with when it came to paying the invoices, as is evident in the Statement. Rather than go on and on, I believe the Intelligent members of this board are starting to understand the situation, and I will close with the following: It is understandable that my filing a Response, sans Legal Counsel, would have left me quite vulnerable if there was any validity to the allegations. The reaction of the Plaintiffs counsel should help to put the whole thing in perspective. After looking over the Response, they chose to drop the case. And what of the actual car owner? His silence would certainly speak volumes on the validity of the allegations made, would they not? Now can we put this to rest? Kermit Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Uh, anyone want to summarize what this is about. I have read bits here and there but its not coherent....
