1
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: November 03, 2008, 12:43:02 AM »
am i able to post some questions without ridicule?what is this site?communist?
News:
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Classified ads are not allowed on the forum.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: November 03, 2008, 12:39:44 AM »
dougD,please get off it!this this thread is not about me!carry on with the subject!
3
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: November 02, 2008, 09:58:05 PM »
im actually tired of talking about it also.i hope we find out the truth and the outcome.and nobody gets hurt.
4
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: November 02, 2008, 08:02:55 PM »
charlie,thank you for that.
5
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: November 02, 2008, 06:56:07 PM »
to be fair i will answer your question.i have been on this site since the beginning.i choose to not say who i am.i have a certified Jm 69 z.i purchased it 4-5 years ago and it came with jm certs.so this topic is important to me.but lets not talk about whos posting ok?lets talk about the subject on hand.thank you.
6
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: November 02, 2008, 06:44:33 PM »
pacecarjeff is the only guy here on the same page as me.so let me explain.johnz beleives that kw received the final report with restoration drivetrain.he just dont want to show it for obvious reasons.i want to believe this also.but how can jerry prove time of delivery of this final report?how do we know jerry didnt just print this final report?kw can say that he has never seen that revised copy.
john z,how do you beleive this beond a reasonable doubt?do you have proof?another question,did kw receive the final report?i thought he didnt because of lack of final payment of$150?
so sum this up.
john z,how do you beleive this beond a reasonable doubt?
did kw receive the final report?i thought he didnt because of lack of final payment of$150?
how can jerry prove time of delivery of this final report?
lets not bikker or blame.its just a question.im not trying to stir it up!i just want to know.very simple.please no harm intended.
john z,how do you beleive this beond a reasonable doubt?do you have proof?another question,did kw receive the final report?i thought he didnt because of lack of final payment of$150?
so sum this up.
john z,how do you beleive this beond a reasonable doubt?
did kw receive the final report?i thought he didnt because of lack of final payment of$150?
how can jerry prove time of delivery of this final report?
lets not bikker or blame.its just a question.im not trying to stir it up!i just want to know.very simple.please no harm intended.
7
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: November 02, 2008, 06:30:01 PM »
bertfarm,
your way off.lets not talk about me ok?i just asked a question.im not the bulder or seller.i wasnt at BJ.im not trying to stir anything up ok.so i hope your done on your rant.anyway,pacecar jeff is right.i just asked a question.and it is this. when did JM rewrite the report?how can he prove it is the original report and not rewritten last week?if KW has only a copy of the report that dont say restoration drivetrain then that would be the original report.Kw has his copy on his website so he and jerry has that copy.but only jm has the revised copy that says restoration drivetrain.how do we know it wasnt just typed on and posted last week?thats all i wanted to know.im sure Jerry M has a logical explianation.i just wanted to hear it.
so the revised copy with restoration drivtrain printed on it is only in the hands jm right? kw doesnt have this copy right? jerry said kw didnt get it since he didnt pay in full.ok i understand that.
once again,my question is this.how can jerry prove that he didnt just print this revised copy recently?
your way off.lets not talk about me ok?i just asked a question.im not the bulder or seller.i wasnt at BJ.im not trying to stir anything up ok.so i hope your done on your rant.anyway,pacecar jeff is right.i just asked a question.and it is this. when did JM rewrite the report?how can he prove it is the original report and not rewritten last week?if KW has only a copy of the report that dont say restoration drivetrain then that would be the original report.Kw has his copy on his website so he and jerry has that copy.but only jm has the revised copy that says restoration drivetrain.how do we know it wasnt just typed on and posted last week?thats all i wanted to know.im sure Jerry M has a logical explianation.i just wanted to hear it.
so the revised copy with restoration drivtrain printed on it is only in the hands jm right? kw doesnt have this copy right? jerry said kw didnt get it since he didnt pay in full.ok i understand that.
once again,my question is this.how can jerry prove that he didnt just print this revised copy recently?
8
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: November 02, 2008, 03:58:37 AM »
somebody ,JerryM please prove me wrong with your side of the story!Some reason i know your not to blame for this and im sure there is a logical explanation to this.
9
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: November 02, 2008, 03:49:50 AM »
its like this;
if i left an auto shop with my white copy of a work order that says tune up $100 and lets say JM was my mechanic and his copy was just like mine except it had on the bottom \"additional full rebuild\"$1000 that was not on my copy.
what would a judge think? i think a judge would beleive my copy for $100!
this is the exact reason you dont leave a shop without taking your copy first! so the shop cant add extra items on it!
if i left an auto shop with my white copy of a work order that says tune up $100 and lets say JM was my mechanic and his copy was just like mine except it had on the bottom \"additional full rebuild\"$1000 that was not on my copy.
what would a judge think? i think a judge would beleive my copy for $100!
this is the exact reason you dont leave a shop without taking your copy first! so the shop cant add extra items on it!
10
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: November 02, 2008, 03:43:43 AM »Sorry, but the 2 report thing smells bad.
If KW needed something to finish his car for Carlisle - the list from page 2 would have been all he needed.
Anyone ever sell a car and write up two bill of sales?
I must say this quote makes a lot of sense to me.
How do we know who is telling the truth? That second report with the “restoration drive train” sentence added could have been revised two days ago! The first report that is supposed to be the draft without the “restoration drive train sentence” is on the guy’s website! And KW and JM both have that copy!
As far as I see it, the \"draft” report without the sentence “restoration drive train” IS THE ORIGINAL!
If this went to a court and KW has only the copy without “restoration drivetrain”and JM had two versions to himself? That would not look good if I were the judge. I think I would have to believe KW.
Don’t kill me for saying what I feel but. I’m sure a few more has thought the same thing i did.
11
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: October 31, 2008, 03:33:25 AM »
GaryL,
quit being so harsh.its not rocket science!look at the time stamps of our postings.i asked the question at 10:08pm and jerry replied to it at 10:36pm.
so i have a legitimate question.
you can come out of your coner now and be nice again.
quit being so harsh.its not rocket science!look at the time stamps of our postings.i asked the question at 10:08pm and jerry replied to it at 10:36pm.
so i have a legitimate question.
you can come out of your coner now and be nice again.
12
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: October 31, 2008, 03:22:29 AM »
thanks. jerry,to bad he was able to display only a partial report that didnt state all the facts.
sir,next time put everything on the first piece of paper.no addendums or second reports etc.
this one may have bit you just a lil bit.
keep the chin up jerry.
sir,next time put everything on the first piece of paper.no addendums or second reports etc.
this one may have bit you just a lil bit.
keep the chin up jerry.
13
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: October 31, 2008, 03:04:47 AM »
gary l,
your so smart!
now go back and read where i asked my question.
yeah,thats right!
before jerrys post.
see? he asnwerd my question and then you became so smarts after the fact..
ok. back to the corner again please.
your so smart!
now go back and read where i asked my question.
yeah,thats right!
before jerrys post.
see? he asnwerd my question and then you became so smarts after the fact..
ok. back to the corner again please.
14
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: October 31, 2008, 02:57:06 AM »fordrocks and 704ever, you guys are pathetic. What is your dog in this hunt? The truth has been printed and you can't comprehend it. Waters duped BJ and the buyer of that car.
your not comprehending my question.
i asked about the report.jm said the report stated restoration drivetrain
gary,did you see restoration drivetrain in the report?
no!
so i asked..
you may go sit in the corner of the room now!
15
General Discussion / Re: barrett jackson las vegas Z-28
« on: October 31, 2008, 02:52:36 AM »704ever,
What is a hired gun and how was the money wasted? Do you know the whole story? Are you a licensed appraiser? Is there a problem with the work that I do for the Camaro community?
Jerry
jerry ,
dont let these posts get to you.there is no problem what you do for the camaro comunity.i just asked a simple question.it wasnt in your best interest that the other piece of the report wasnt avail for viewing.
pathetic?
i simply asked a question that was valid?
he said restoration drivetrain and i did not see it in the report.nor was it stated that the report being viewd was not complete!
get off it dude!
your pathetic for even saying that.
Pages: [1] 2