In His Own Words
04-21-2010, 05:59 PM
#121
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Syracuse N.Y.
Posts: 4,951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by cosmic12; 04-21-2010 at 06:01 PM.
04-21-2010, 06:02 PM
#122
VIP Member
VIP MemberThread Starter
I have taken my time and carefully considered the most appropriate response to the recent events. Some people were disappointed that I didn’t immediately jump into an accusatory shouting match with people hurling accusations. Others assumed “it must all be true and he’s running from it”. People that know me know that I don’t do things without thinking them through and carefully considering the consequences. I’ll return to consequences in a bit.
There was in fact an effort made to secure ownership of Serious from me. It came on Friday, March 30th in the form of an e-mail. To begin with, it was by no definition a legitimate or proper offer to buy a business. It was in the form of an e-mail and the language was vague at best. It cited the cooperative interests of four parties of which I had no idea if truly associated with the proposal, let alone if the signor was legitimate in the first place.
The issue with how it was delivered were the least of my concerns. The e-mail began with a statement about how the action was being done on behalf of the Board members, yet all but four were excluded from this “offer”. As I began making calls I learned that everyone else was as surprised as me. The e-mail then addressed the fact that the group had been “inundated with information” regarding my past. I suppose this is the same information being whispered about with no direct accusation- as it’s baseless. No one seems willing to make a direct, libelous statements.
They then go on to address the situation with the check to the charity. As everyone has now heard, there was a mixup with a check delivered to a charity that was quickly and satisfactorily resolved for all parties involved. Interestingly enough, the “offer” letter was delivered while we were still attempting to learn about what happened with the check. I would assume this group didn’t assemble all this information, agree upon and form a four-way investment partnership and discuss, agree upon and present an offer in a day. In my estimation the check issue was a convenient excuse. And a made-to-order leverage point.
The next two paragraphs are interesting- the first declares that the four in question will not be continuing as participants on the site. The next tells me that without those four the site has zero value and the only parties that would value it was their group.
So far, all that’s been accomplished is attempts at potentially softening my confidence about the viability of the site and what I perceived as thinly veiled threats of personal business disclosures.
They follow this up with a pocket-change offer for the total interest of the site.
The “offer” then included a stipulation to provide contractual assurances of non-disclosure.
Lastly it gave me just two weekend days and one morning to consider, seek counsel- although not from their fellow Board members and deliver a decision. They also made it clear they has “other means” to publicly press their agenda if I didn’t comply.
In my opinion, a proper adversarial offer to purchase a business comes in the form of a written document, most commonly delivered through the buyer’s agent. Friendly offers usually start with a casual conversation between the two parties. Legitimate offers don’t come with veiled threats of disclosures of a multitude of unspecified wrongdoings. Or for absurd amounts.
As I mentioned earlier, I began phoning Board members. All were able to provide valuable input on the situation. After those discussions I quickly determined that there would be no response to the overture. I came to find that the group of four still had some sort of back-door access to the private moderator’s discussion room, despite having their permissions immediately revoked. We learned about this later- one of the four even bragged to a Board member about it. Nonetheless, on Sunday evening the representative for the group withdrew the “offer”, citing that the site was now valueless due to the Board being informed and now in an adversarial mood toward the group wishing to purchase it.
I made a pledge to all of the Founding members when we started that the site would never leave our control. It wouldn’t go to a third party and it certainly would never go to a group of insiders that intentionally excluded the rest.
Immediately they began to make good upon their threat. The issue with the check was between myself and one other Board member. By the first of the week, threads began appearing on OSO floating the notion of some sort of impropriety. As is often the case, each and every tidbit was sparingly released to drive drama and anticipation. The poll was a nice touch too. Clearly the individual enlisted the help of proxies with their own agendas to push this issue publicly. As you all saw in the check thread, everyone had a grand old time with this until I posted my comments and some documentation. The mood immediately changed. All the rational people went “honest mistake” and moved on. Some chose to continue their rants. Now we have a completely different thread trying once again to convince the world what a bad person I am. The same people, the same agenda. I made an observation this afternoon that the entire sum of people truly concerned about this wouldn’t constitute a crowd in my modest living room. The majority of the rest are here for the amusement value.
Over the last week I’ve been dealing pretty much exclusively with this issue. Dealing with Board members being pestered and in some cases harassed. And dealing with the exploration of my options. The hardest part of this has been having to stand by and watch the discomfort of those that have stood by me during this. As I said in the beginning I don’t do anything by reaction. And sometimes it takes time, consideration and the input of others. Unfortunately we had a board member too close to one of the other parties to remain with us. Another was experiencing other life issues and stepped back as a result. And a few just simply got tired of being hassled. That’s unfortunate.
Over the last week I have been in contact with law enforcement officials and my attorneys. Both are willing to proceed with action against the four and their group of proxies. But I’ve spent today soul-searching on the right thing to do. After the offer died, three of the four went silent. While I disagree with their action, I respect that they went away. And I believe that they may not have entirely understood what was going on. Regardless of what’s happened, law enforcement and lawyers visiting workplaces with subpoenas for e-mails and such are damaging. And contingency-driven lawyers want large sums of money for their efforts. All I want is this nonsense to stop. I don’t want a nickle from anyone. And I don’t want to see people hurt from this, regardless of what’s transpired this week.
I’m not naming names. There is no reason. I would suggest you do the same. I don’t believe they want what’s happening to be going on and after being dragged through the mud a few times lately I completely understand why. Revenge is for sad, bitter people.
To the rest of the crap people have been floating around, as I said before, bring me someone I owe money to. Bring me someone who I’ve wronged. After 10 years on OSO and now Serious there has to be someone. As a few of you may have noticed, one of the rumored issues was brought up on OSO. The individual in question- the guy that supposedly got ripped off- told the person inquiring that his story was a total fabrication. The thread was instantly deleted. I wonder why? The truth would likely ruin all the fun.
There was in fact an effort made to secure ownership of Serious from me. It came on Friday, March 30th in the form of an e-mail. To begin with, it was by no definition a legitimate or proper offer to buy a business. It was in the form of an e-mail and the language was vague at best. It cited the cooperative interests of four parties of which I had no idea if truly associated with the proposal, let alone if the signor was legitimate in the first place.
The issue with how it was delivered were the least of my concerns. The e-mail began with a statement about how the action was being done on behalf of the Board members, yet all but four were excluded from this “offer”. As I began making calls I learned that everyone else was as surprised as me. The e-mail then addressed the fact that the group had been “inundated with information” regarding my past. I suppose this is the same information being whispered about with no direct accusation- as it’s baseless. No one seems willing to make a direct, libelous statements.
They then go on to address the situation with the check to the charity. As everyone has now heard, there was a mixup with a check delivered to a charity that was quickly and satisfactorily resolved for all parties involved. Interestingly enough, the “offer” letter was delivered while we were still attempting to learn about what happened with the check. I would assume this group didn’t assemble all this information, agree upon and form a four-way investment partnership and discuss, agree upon and present an offer in a day. In my estimation the check issue was a convenient excuse. And a made-to-order leverage point.
The next two paragraphs are interesting- the first declares that the four in question will not be continuing as participants on the site. The next tells me that without those four the site has zero value and the only parties that would value it was their group.
So far, all that’s been accomplished is attempts at potentially softening my confidence about the viability of the site and what I perceived as thinly veiled threats of personal business disclosures.
They follow this up with a pocket-change offer for the total interest of the site.
The “offer” then included a stipulation to provide contractual assurances of non-disclosure.
Lastly it gave me just two weekend days and one morning to consider, seek counsel- although not from their fellow Board members and deliver a decision. They also made it clear they has “other means” to publicly press their agenda if I didn’t comply.
In my opinion, a proper adversarial offer to purchase a business comes in the form of a written document, most commonly delivered through the buyer’s agent. Friendly offers usually start with a casual conversation between the two parties. Legitimate offers don’t come with veiled threats of disclosures of a multitude of unspecified wrongdoings. Or for absurd amounts.
As I mentioned earlier, I began phoning Board members. All were able to provide valuable input on the situation. After those discussions I quickly determined that there would be no response to the overture. I came to find that the group of four still had some sort of back-door access to the private moderator’s discussion room, despite having their permissions immediately revoked. We learned about this later- one of the four even bragged to a Board member about it. Nonetheless, on Sunday evening the representative for the group withdrew the “offer”, citing that the site was now valueless due to the Board being informed and now in an adversarial mood toward the group wishing to purchase it.
I made a pledge to all of the Founding members when we started that the site would never leave our control. It wouldn’t go to a third party and it certainly would never go to a group of insiders that intentionally excluded the rest.
Immediately they began to make good upon their threat. The issue with the check was between myself and one other Board member. By the first of the week, threads began appearing on OSO floating the notion of some sort of impropriety. As is often the case, each and every tidbit was sparingly released to drive drama and anticipation. The poll was a nice touch too. Clearly the individual enlisted the help of proxies with their own agendas to push this issue publicly. As you all saw in the check thread, everyone had a grand old time with this until I posted my comments and some documentation. The mood immediately changed. All the rational people went “honest mistake” and moved on. Some chose to continue their rants. Now we have a completely different thread trying once again to convince the world what a bad person I am. The same people, the same agenda. I made an observation this afternoon that the entire sum of people truly concerned about this wouldn’t constitute a crowd in my modest living room. The majority of the rest are here for the amusement value.
Over the last week I’ve been dealing pretty much exclusively with this issue. Dealing with Board members being pestered and in some cases harassed. And dealing with the exploration of my options. The hardest part of this has been having to stand by and watch the discomfort of those that have stood by me during this. As I said in the beginning I don’t do anything by reaction. And sometimes it takes time, consideration and the input of others. Unfortunately we had a board member too close to one of the other parties to remain with us. Another was experiencing other life issues and stepped back as a result. And a few just simply got tired of being hassled. That’s unfortunate.
Over the last week I have been in contact with law enforcement officials and my attorneys. Both are willing to proceed with action against the four and their group of proxies. But I’ve spent today soul-searching on the right thing to do. After the offer died, three of the four went silent. While I disagree with their action, I respect that they went away. And I believe that they may not have entirely understood what was going on. Regardless of what’s happened, law enforcement and lawyers visiting workplaces with subpoenas for e-mails and such are damaging. And contingency-driven lawyers want large sums of money for their efforts. All I want is this nonsense to stop. I don’t want a nickle from anyone. And I don’t want to see people hurt from this, regardless of what’s transpired this week.
I’m not naming names. There is no reason. I would suggest you do the same. I don’t believe they want what’s happening to be going on and after being dragged through the mud a few times lately I completely understand why. Revenge is for sad, bitter people.
To the rest of the crap people have been floating around, as I said before, bring me someone I owe money to. Bring me someone who I’ve wronged. After 10 years on OSO and now Serious there has to be someone. As a few of you may have noticed, one of the rumored issues was brought up on OSO. The individual in question- the guy that supposedly got ripped off- told the person inquiring that his story was a total fabrication. The thread was instantly deleted. I wonder why? The truth would likely ruin all the fun.
Last edited by jayboat; 04-21-2010 at 06:10 PM.
04-21-2010, 06:05 PM
#123
Registered
Chris, what about the boats? This is a boating web site. It's all about the boats.
I would not have even posted on the subject at all if you had simply offered proof that you actually owned the boats. If you don't offer proof (which anyone could and would do in this situation) then most people will still think you are the pathological lier others have accused you of being.
Tell us about the boats Chris and clear your name.
I would not have even posted on the subject at all if you had simply offered proof that you actually owned the boats. If you don't offer proof (which anyone could and would do in this situation) then most people will still think you are the pathological lier others have accused you of being.
Tell us about the boats Chris and clear your name.
04-21-2010, 06:06 PM
#124
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bell Canyon, CA
Posts: 12,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have taken my time and carefully considered the most appropriate response to the recent events. Some people were disappointed that I didn’t immediately jump into an accusatory shouting match with people hurling accusations. Others assumed “it must all be true and he’s running from it”. People that know me know that I don’t do things without thinking them through and carefully considering the consequences. I’ll return to consequences in a bit.
There was in fact an effort made to secure ownership of Serious from me. It came on Friday, March 30th in the form of an e-mail. To begin with, it was by no definition a legitimate or proper offer to buy a business. It was in the form of an e-mail and the language was vague at best. It cited the cooperative interests of four parties of which I had no idea if truly associated with the proposal, let alone if the signor was legitimate in the first place.
The issue with how it was delivered were the least of my concerns. The e-mail began with a statement about how the action was being done on behalf of the Board members, yet all but four were excluded from this “offer”. As I began making calls I learned that everyone else was as surprised as me. The e-mail then addressed the fact that the group had been “inundated with information” regarding my past. I suppose this is the same information being whispered about with no direct accusation- as it’s baseless. No one seems willing to make a direct, libelous statements.
They then go on to address the situation with the check to the charity. As everyone has now heard, there was a mixup with a check delivered to a charity that was quickly and satisfactorily resolved for all parties involved. Interestingly enough, the “offer” letter was delivered while we were still attempting to learn about what happened with the check. I would assume this group didn’t assemble all this information, agree upon and form a four-way investment partnership and discuss, agree upon and present an offer in a day. In my estimation the check issue was a convenient excuse. And a made-to-order leverage point.
The next two paragraphs are interesting- the first declares that the four in question will not be continuing as participants on the site. The next tells me that without those four the site has zero value and the only parties that would value it was their group.
So far, all that’s been accomplished is attempts at potentially softening my confidence about the viability of the site and what I perceived as thinly veiled threats of personal business disclosures.
They follow this up with a pocket-change offer for the total interest of the site.
The “offer” then included a stipulation to provide contractual assurances of non-disclosure.
Lastly it gave me just two weekend days and one morning to consider, seek counsel- although not from their fellow Board members and deliver a decision. They also made it clear they has “other means” to publicly press their agenda if I didn’t comply.
In my opinion, a proper adversarial offer to purchase a business comes in the form of a written document, most commonly delivered through the buyer’s agent. Friendly offers usually start with a casual conversation between the two parties. Legitimate offers don’t come with veiled threats of disclosures of a multitude of unspecified wrongdoings. Or for absurd amounts.
As I mentioned earlier, I began phoning Board members. All were able to provide valuable input on the situation. After those discussions I quickly determined that there would be no response to the overture. I came to find that the group of four still had some sort of back-door access to the private moderator’s discussion room, despite having their permissions immediately revoked. We learned about this later- one of the four even bragged to a Board member about it. Nonetheless, on Sunday evening the representative for the group withdrew the “offer”, citing that the site was now valueless due to the Board being informed and now in an adversarial mood toward the group wishing to purchase it.
I made a pledge to all of the Founding members when we started that the site would never leave our control. It wouldn’t go to a third party and it certainly would never go to a group of insiders that intentionally excluded the rest.
Immediately they began to make good upon their threat. The issue with the check was between myself and one other Board member. By the first of the week, threads began appearing on OSO floating the notion of some sort of impropriety. As is often the case, each and every tidbit was sparingly released to drive drama and anticipation. The poll was a nice touch too. Clearly the individual enlisted the help of proxies with their own agendas to push this issue publicly. As you all saw in the check thread, everyone had a grand old time with this until I posted my comments and some documentation. The mood immediately changed. All the rational people went “honest mistake” and moved on. Some chose to continue their rants. Now we have a completely different thread trying once again to convince the world what a bad person I am. The same people, the same agenda. I made an observation this afternoon that the entire sum of people truly concerned about this wouldn’t constitute a crowd in my modest living room. The majority of the rest are here for the amusement value.
Over the last week I’ve been dealing pretty much exclusively with this issue. Dealing with Board members being pestered and in some cases harassed. And dealing with the exploration of my options. The hardest part of this has been having to stand by and watch the discomfort of those that have stood by me during this. As I said in the beginning I don’t do anything by reaction. And sometimes it takes time, consideration and the input of others. Unfortunately we had a board member too close to one of the other parties to remain with us. Another was experiencing other life issues and stepped back as a result. And a few just simply got tired of being hassled. That’s unfortunate.
Over the last week I have been in contact with law enforcement officials and my attorneys. Both are willing to proceed with action against the four and their group of proxies. But I’ve spent today soul-searching on the right thing to do. After the offer died, three of the four went silent. While I disagree with their action, I respect that they went away. And I believe that they may not have entirely understood what was going on. Regardless of what’s happened, law enforcement and lawyers visiting workplaces with subpoenas for e-mails and such are damaging. And contingency-driven lawyers want large sums of money for their efforts. All I want is this nonsense to stop. I don’t want a nickle from anyone. And I don’t want to see people hurt from this, regardless of what’s transpired this week.
I’m not naming names. There is no reason. I would suggest you do the same. I don’t believe they want what’s happening to be going on and after being dragged through the mud a few times lately I completely understand why. Revenge is for sad, bitter people.
To the rest of the crap people have been floating around, as I said before, bring me someone I owe money to. Bring me someone who I’ve wronged. After 10 years on OSO and now Serious there has to be someone. As a few of you may have noticed, one of the rumored issues was brought up on OSO. The individual in question- the guy that supposedly got ripped off- told the person inquiring that his story was a total fabrication. The thread was instantly deleted. I wonder why? The truth would likely ruin all the fun.
There was in fact an effort made to secure ownership of Serious from me. It came on Friday, March 30th in the form of an e-mail. To begin with, it was by no definition a legitimate or proper offer to buy a business. It was in the form of an e-mail and the language was vague at best. It cited the cooperative interests of four parties of which I had no idea if truly associated with the proposal, let alone if the signor was legitimate in the first place.
The issue with how it was delivered were the least of my concerns. The e-mail began with a statement about how the action was being done on behalf of the Board members, yet all but four were excluded from this “offer”. As I began making calls I learned that everyone else was as surprised as me. The e-mail then addressed the fact that the group had been “inundated with information” regarding my past. I suppose this is the same information being whispered about with no direct accusation- as it’s baseless. No one seems willing to make a direct, libelous statements.
They then go on to address the situation with the check to the charity. As everyone has now heard, there was a mixup with a check delivered to a charity that was quickly and satisfactorily resolved for all parties involved. Interestingly enough, the “offer” letter was delivered while we were still attempting to learn about what happened with the check. I would assume this group didn’t assemble all this information, agree upon and form a four-way investment partnership and discuss, agree upon and present an offer in a day. In my estimation the check issue was a convenient excuse. And a made-to-order leverage point.
The next two paragraphs are interesting- the first declares that the four in question will not be continuing as participants on the site. The next tells me that without those four the site has zero value and the only parties that would value it was their group.
So far, all that’s been accomplished is attempts at potentially softening my confidence about the viability of the site and what I perceived as thinly veiled threats of personal business disclosures.
They follow this up with a pocket-change offer for the total interest of the site.
The “offer” then included a stipulation to provide contractual assurances of non-disclosure.
Lastly it gave me just two weekend days and one morning to consider, seek counsel- although not from their fellow Board members and deliver a decision. They also made it clear they has “other means” to publicly press their agenda if I didn’t comply.
In my opinion, a proper adversarial offer to purchase a business comes in the form of a written document, most commonly delivered through the buyer’s agent. Friendly offers usually start with a casual conversation between the two parties. Legitimate offers don’t come with veiled threats of disclosures of a multitude of unspecified wrongdoings. Or for absurd amounts.
As I mentioned earlier, I began phoning Board members. All were able to provide valuable input on the situation. After those discussions I quickly determined that there would be no response to the overture. I came to find that the group of four still had some sort of back-door access to the private moderator’s discussion room, despite having their permissions immediately revoked. We learned about this later- one of the four even bragged to a Board member about it. Nonetheless, on Sunday evening the representative for the group withdrew the “offer”, citing that the site was now valueless due to the Board being informed and now in an adversarial mood toward the group wishing to purchase it.
I made a pledge to all of the Founding members when we started that the site would never leave our control. It wouldn’t go to a third party and it certainly would never go to a group of insiders that intentionally excluded the rest.
Immediately they began to make good upon their threat. The issue with the check was between myself and one other Board member. By the first of the week, threads began appearing on OSO floating the notion of some sort of impropriety. As is often the case, each and every tidbit was sparingly released to drive drama and anticipation. The poll was a nice touch too. Clearly the individual enlisted the help of proxies with their own agendas to push this issue publicly. As you all saw in the check thread, everyone had a grand old time with this until I posted my comments and some documentation. The mood immediately changed. All the rational people went “honest mistake” and moved on. Some chose to continue their rants. Now we have a completely different thread trying once again to convince the world what a bad person I am. The same people, the same agenda. I made an observation this afternoon that the entire sum of people truly concerned about this wouldn’t constitute a crowd in my modest living room. The majority of the rest are here for the amusement value.
Over the last week I’ve been dealing pretty much exclusively with this issue. Dealing with Board members being pestered and in some cases harassed. And dealing with the exploration of my options. The hardest part of this has been having to stand by and watch the discomfort of those that have stood by me during this. As I said in the beginning I don’t do anything by reaction. And sometimes it takes time, consideration and the input of others. Unfortunately we had a board member too close to one of the other parties to remain with us. Another was experiencing other life issues and stepped back as a result. And a few just simply got tired of being hassled. That’s unfortunate.
Over the last week I have been in contact with law enforcement officials and my attorneys. Both are willing to proceed with action against the four and their group of proxies. But I’ve spent today soul-searching on the right thing to do. After the offer died, three of the four went silent. While I disagree with their action, I respect that they went away. And I believe that they may not have entirely understood what was going on. Regardless of what’s happened, law enforcement and lawyers visiting workplaces with subpoenas for e-mails and such are damaging. And contingency-driven lawyers want large sums of money for their efforts. All I want is this nonsense to stop. I don’t want a nickle from anyone. And I don’t want to see people hurt from this, regardless of what’s transpired this week.
I’m not naming names. There is no reason. I would suggest you do the same. I don’t believe they want what’s happening to be going on and after being dragged through the mud a few times lately I completely understand why. Revenge is for sad, bitter people.
To the rest of the crap people have been floating around, as I said before, bring me someone I owe money to. Bring me someone who I’ve wronged. After 10 years on OSO and now Serious there has to be someone. As a few of you may have noticed, one of the rumored issues was brought up on OSO. The individual in question- the guy that supposedly got ripped off- told the person inquiring that his story was a total fabrication. The thread was instantly deleted. I wonder why? The truth would likely ruin all the fun.
04-21-2010, 06:20 PM
#125
Driver-441
Racer
Chris, what about the boats? This is a boating web site. It's all about the boats.
I would not have even posted on the subject at all if you had simply offered proof that you actually owned the boats. If you don't offer proof (which anyone could and would do in this situation) then most people will still think you are the pathological lier others have accused you of being.
Tell us about the boats Chris and clear your name.
I would not have even posted on the subject at all if you had simply offered proof that you actually owned the boats. If you don't offer proof (which anyone could and would do in this situation) then most people will still think you are the pathological lier others have accused you of being.
Tell us about the boats Chris and clear your name.
04-21-2010, 06:44 PM
#127
instigator
Platinum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Miami, Fla
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-21-2010, 06:51 PM
#128
VIP Member
VIP MemberThread Starter
Hate is a very strong word.
I suppose you could say I hate liars and thieves.
I have a particular distaste for groundless threats against me and my friends from a known liar and thief.
So don't call it hate. Call it fighting fire with fire.
I suppose you could say I hate liars and thieves.
I have a particular distaste for groundless threats against me and my friends from a known liar and thief.
So don't call it hate. Call it fighting fire with fire.
04-21-2010, 07:14 PM
#129
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's an interesting statement coming from a man who once carried a TV out of his neighbor's abandoned mobile home during a hurricane. But you took it back, so it's cool. Like covering a bad check, I suppose. You aren't a looter, just a guy who looted once and chickened out.
The truth is that you hate who you hate, and then find a reason.
You lied about me TWICE this week. Oh yeah, that was a "mistake."
The truth is that you hate who you hate, and then find a reason.
You lied about me TWICE this week. Oh yeah, that was a "mistake."
Last edited by fund razor; 04-21-2010 at 07:16 PM.
04-21-2010, 07:14 PM
#130
instigator
Platinum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Miami, Fla
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can you show us grounds for your thief comment? I haven't seen that ANYWHERE, that's a pretty strong accusation that will paint YOU a liar if you can't...... perhaps YOU need to bone up on your internet law interpretations..
