Chittum 18 Construction - Page 9

Jighead · 07-05-2009, 03:15 PM

What happened to that peckerhead Swank? I liked it when he was getting all knotted up over something he clearly couldn't grasp.

skinnywater · 07-05-2009, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jighead

What happened to that peckerhead Swank? I liked it when he was getting all knotted up over something he clearly couldn't grasp.

Really dude...your first post...come on...

Swank · 07-05-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jighead

What happened to that peckerhead Swank? I liked it when he was getting all knotted up over something he clearly couldn't grasp.

right here Nancy....did you need me to explain something for you?

Jighead · 07-05-2009, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinnywater

Really dude...your first post...come on...

Well...I just hate negativity. It's just so much easier to be positive. Anyway, Nancy used to be my nickname so I'll accept the familiarity. Next time I'm in Florida, Swank, I'll look you up so I can explain over some beers (I'll buy) how violation of common law theories of confidentiality can have an unwanted impact on businesses. Meanwhile...good fishin'.

JRH · 07-06-2009, 05:22 AM

Citing the common law in your second post. Awesomeness.

Swank · 07-06-2009, 06:10 AM

Yes, I can see how asking if the only existing completed version of their product got broken could be harmful for business, and if this place were simply a commercial for their company it would probably seem inappropriate. But thanks for the common law ruling, my internet attorney is here now if you need to common law sue me. Otherwise like I asked previously, do you need something explained Nancy?

Jighead · 07-06-2009, 07:25 AM

I should have said case law as opposed to statute.

Here's the dilemma, I came on here to read about fishing and boats, two things that hold a great deal of interest to me. In one thread about a new boat, a very polite person is repeatedly harassed by some guy who wants an answer to a question that the boat builder can't answer for apparent legal and ethical reasons well stated. The boat builder suddenly becomes some sort of snake who is dodging the inquiry for nefarious reasons. Maybe that's how you guys roll on here, but I don't know why you would really put up with Swank's rudeness.

Let's examine the same scenario from a different perspective. There is a broken boat. Based on the value of the boat and the circumstances surrounding its damage, there is probably either an insurance claim or a warranty claim, both of which might merit investigation prior to paying out $$$. Don't think that anything you write online in a public forum wouldn't be subject to scrutiny or discovery (been there, done that). If Swank's garage burned down with his boat inside, the insurance company would probably investigate the cause of the fire to some minor extent. However, if they suspected fraud, they would look everywhere they could think of to find a reason not to pay! Imagine if Swank had posted on here "I wish I could get rid of this old boat. I want a new one, but can't get one until the old one is gone". Then one of Swank's buddies on an unrelated post writes "Hey Swank, remember that time we made napalm out of styrofoam and gasoline in your garage?" Poppin' off out of context suddenly becomes a problem.

Now imagine the customer with the broken boat. He is seeking some sort of recovery and he sure as hell doesn't need the guy who sold him the boat (who may either be his advocate or his adversary) to blow his claim out of the water by talking about the issues surrounding the boat's damage. Muddying the water helps no one.

Then along comes ol' Swank...badgering a guy who clearly stated "I can't talk about it". Swank was being an abusive a$$. I'm not going to put up with it, so kick me off of here if you want, or let the slings and arrows fly. It doesn't matter to me, but any group that holds itself out as a "tribe" shouldn't put up with either me (a newcomer starting trouble) or Swank ( a senior member starting trouble).

You guys know who's right here and it ain't Swank! I admit I threw down the gaunlet with Swank and started this on purpose, and I'll raise my level of civility, but I can guarantee Swank won't.

Swank · 07-06-2009, 08:02 AM

You certainly hold your own opinions in high regard..

please show where I called anybody a snake, thanks.

You seem like you will make a fun little internet pet though.
when do you take the bar exam?

Jighead · 07-06-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swank

I'm done with this, you told me nothing and everything.

Implies snakiness, but maybe I read too much into your post. I look forward to being your pet...will make things entertaining for everyone. At least you didn't call me Nancy again!

BTW...1986.

Swank · 07-06-2009, 10:23 AM

"implies snakiness"
my favorite thing said on the internet so far today.

keep swinging....

07-06-2009, 05:22 AM	#85 (permalink)
JRH Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Courthouse Posts: 608	Citing the common law in your second post. Awesomeness. __________________ "Ward, I think you were a little hard on the beaver..."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-05-2009, 03:15 PM	#81 (permalink)
Jighead Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Houston TX Posts: 5	What happened to that peckerhead Swank? I liked it when he was getting all knotted up over something he clearly couldn't grasp.

07-06-2009, 06:10 AM	#86 (permalink)
Swank Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Destin Posts: 166	Yes, I can see how asking if the only existing completed version of their product got broken could be harmful for business, and if this place were simply a commercial for their company it would probably seem inappropriate. But thanks for the common law ruling, my internet attorney is here now if you need to common law sue me. Otherwise like I asked previously, do you need something explained Nancy?

07-06-2009, 07:25 AM	#87 (permalink)
Jighead Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Houston TX Posts: 5	I should have said case law as opposed to statute. Here's the dilemma, I came on here to read about fishing and boats, two things that hold a great deal of interest to me. In one thread about a new boat, a very polite person is repeatedly harassed by some guy who wants an answer to a question that the boat builder can't answer for apparent legal and ethical reasons well stated. The boat builder suddenly becomes some sort of snake who is dodging the inquiry for nefarious reasons. Maybe that's how you guys roll on here, but I don't know why you would really put up with Swank's rudeness. Let's examine the same scenario from a different perspective. There is a broken boat. Based on the value of the boat and the circumstances surrounding its damage, there is probably either an insurance claim or a warranty claim, both of which might merit investigation prior to paying out $$$. Don't think that anything you write online in a public forum wouldn't be subject to scrutiny or discovery (been there, done that). If Swank's garage burned down with his boat inside, the insurance company would probably investigate the cause of the fire to some minor extent. However, if they suspected fraud, they would look everywhere they could think of to find a reason not to pay! Imagine if Swank had posted on here "I wish I could get rid of this old boat. I want a new one, but can't get one until the old one is gone". Then one of Swank's buddies on an unrelated post writes "Hey Swank, remember that time we made napalm out of styrofoam and gasoline in your garage?" Poppin' off out of context suddenly becomes a problem. Now imagine the customer with the broken boat. He is seeking some sort of recovery and he sure as hell doesn't need the guy who sold him the boat (who may either be his advocate or his adversary) to blow his claim out of the water by talking about the issues surrounding the boat's damage. Muddying the water helps no one. Then along comes ol' Swank...badgering a guy who clearly stated "I can't talk about it". Swank was being an abusive a$$. I'm not going to put up with it, so kick me off of here if you want, or let the slings and arrows fly. It doesn't matter to me, but any group that holds itself out as a "tribe" shouldn't put up with either me (a newcomer starting trouble) or Swank ( a senior member starting trouble). You guys know who's right here and it ain't Swank! I admit I threw down the gaunlet with Swank and started this on purpose, and I'll raise my level of civility, but I can guarantee Swank won't.

07-06-2009, 08:02 AM	#88 (permalink)
Swank Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Destin Posts: 166	You certainly hold your own opinions in high regard.. please show where I called anybody a snake, thanks. You seem like you will make a fun little internet pet though. when do you take the bar exam?

07-06-2009, 10:23 AM	#90 (permalink)
Swank Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Destin Posts: 166	"implies snakiness" my favorite thing said on the internet so far today. keep swinging....