Anybody seen Joe?

[Jon Wehrenberg]

Peter, stirring this pot is not going to resolve anything. It is not up to me or you to do anything, and it is not up to the parties involved to tell us anything.

I am sure that when you and I were running our businesses we made unpopular decisions, and I'll bet neither one of us felt compelled to spill our guts to anyone regarding the details. If Jim as the owner of this site chooses to tell anyone or not tell anyone that is his decision. We (you and I and even other members of POG) are not going to solve this because sure as hell is not our place to solve this difference of opinion between Joe and Jim.

If you choose to not renew because Jim and Joe opt to not discuss their business decisions that is up to you. I will miss your brand of humor and wit and your ability to get past the BS and get to the heart of an issue.

[J.C. Watts]

Thanks to the few new friends I have traded conversations with. Peter you bring up an interesting point about written rules. I mentioned in a previous post that I am sure the gentlemen in question here were not the first to get booted from this site and would certainly not be the last. Well according to some there are indeed others who were banned from this site and what rules did they break? Was there something written that said they violated something? Yet I am told that some members actually contacted the webmaster here and pushed for some to get booted. And according to what I have heard they did not violate any written rule. Yet off they went. This matter needs to be dropped. If the webmaster says he is out, then he is out. It seems others were shown the door, and if it was good enough for them then it ought to be good enough for the gentlemen in question. There should be no "Well BUT" about any of them. I said it once and I guess I will say it again, these gentlemen will not be the first, nor the last to get banned from this site. All this about not renewing, I agree with Jon that is each person's decision. A decision was made about a member's status and I assume the right decision was made. We could go on and on about why someone should not get the boot but it is over with. If there is any change of heart then I guess the webmaster will reverse his actions. My question would be then is it fair for some to get a reversal and not others?

[truk4u]

For those of you that are threatening to quit, go ahead an do it! It's your decision to leave, threatening to quit isn't going to change anything and damn sure won't bring Skiff to his knee's, if thats your motive.

Let this thread die and allow Jim and Joe to work it out.

[Darl-Wilson]

Here is the rerun....

How about we move on from this one and find something else to obsess about.

Attachment 5267

[Jerry Winchester]

Jon, I agree with not stirring the pot and as much as we would all like to just move on past this, several folks seem to believe they have the right to all the facts and to make a determination themselves.

And as many have already tried Jim Skiff in the court of public opinion, my dealings with him over the past three years have been nothing but above board and honorable. He has let this forum move all over the spectrum with very little interference and I appreciate there not being a lot of rules. He owes me no explanation or reason for his actions. That is between him and the other parties.

Who is he to require liability coverage for someone soliciting work from this board? He has every right because even a shopping center lawyer could trace a fatality or property damage back to a connection made on this board. I have been in court all day fighting a frivolous lawsuit. Three jurors said so in interrogation today and we dismissed by the plaintiff. I have only spent the price of a new XLII on defense so far. I get sued all the time for just being near an issue; you don't have to actually do anything they just sue everyone on location.

As for another board, Peter I PM'ed a few folks looking to raise a $100 to send you so you can move on and start your Yahoo forum.

I had to shut the donations down at $1200, so enjoy yourself and I'll buy the guys at POG 8 a round on PeterV.

JC. - Take a knee and sit this one out on the sideline. Just because you cheated death once doesn't mean it will happen again.

[rickdesilva]

Jdub,
great post count me in for $200. I can only assume that Joe is a great guy as everyone has great things to say about him and my contact with Skiffer brings me to the same conclusion about him. Besides the potential liability problem, getting insurance makes Joe's business situation legitimate. This helps the situation in everyones eyes. Speaking of eyes, my mother used to say its all fun and games until someone loses an eye........then the lawyers come out. I'll be more than happy to educate anyone about the effects of non insured auto repair shops/ sub contractors. Lets do what we do best, help Joe out, head to OKC and if you don't like the forum.....addios.

[jello_jeep]

1200+200=
1400

JJ raises the pot $1,000...

Total 2400.

Peace & quiet.....

Pricless

[jonnie]

I know a few of you guys and that this is a great forum whether you have a Prevost or are a wanabee. There are only 2 dogs in this fight and that is the way we should leave it!!!!!

[gmcbuffalo]

There may be only two dogs in this fight but Jon and Jerry what do the rest of us do just keep running around the yard until we run out of chain and get jerked by the neck and we're gone?

A board rules notice of some type would be helpful. If what JC say is true some people on this board have more pull then others or know some of the rules.

Most of the people on this board have been in business and have made major discisions, it's hard for people like this to be kept in the dark.

I agree it's Jim's site and his to run.

All you business guys who say is you make the final say, how many of you fired someone without an explaination to rest of your employee's? Especially if it''s because someone violated company policy. Without an explaination any employee will wonder who's next. nIt's called good management.

GregM

[Jon Wehrenberg]

I'll offer up the rules if that is what has everybody concerned.

#1. Be nice to one another on the forum

That's it. We can debate. We can disagree. We can have different opinions, but in the end we need to treat each other with respect. We need to be nice. Except to JDUB.

I think there are people on this forum who have "pull" to use your term. They are the people who work with Jim behind the scenes to offer advice, to help with the extensive planning that goes into making a rally successful, that put on seminars, that write articles, and from time to time just shoot the breeze with Jim because he is more than the guy that owns this site. He is a friend. Those folks aren't special in that they aren't running the show, it's just that they make a contribution and as such are usually communicating with Jim and the others who are also working for POG routinely.

Anyone here can have "pull". Volunteer to help out for the next rally. Offer Jim advice on how to improve the site. Be willing to write some rules if you feel they would be a good thing. I don't think we need rules because we are adults and we should know the difference between right and wrong, but there are some folks that will step out of bounds whether we have rules or not. So maybe that is a good thing to have rules for the people who need them.

I did fire people and refused to discuss their termination with other employees. The only people who needed to know why there was a termination was me and the one who got fired. But usually everybody was smart enough to figure it out anyway.

But when all is said and done this entire issue is not about a member who made a nasty post. Joe made great posts and to the best of my knowledge never attacked anyone or did anything wrong on the forum. This is about the business side of POG and since Jim is POG and it is his business, and the decision on how to run the business is his, he needs to be permitted to run his business.

Can we kill this thread? Will that be OK with everybody? Lets vote so Jim doesn't get blamed for killing it unilaterally.