Letterman
N/A
Hang on, I will have a go................
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
evm1024
New member
As you may know there was a time when Arsenic was consumed in non-lethal amounts as a recreational drug. Some forms of arsenic are more toxic than others and some people could consume your glass of arsenic and live through it.
The point is that the truth is much more complex than black and white.
Please change your tone. I don't want this thread pulled.
Letterman
N/A
Ok, here we go:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3335094#post3335094
EVM: I think you are attempting to distinguish between absolute truth and relative experience (or opinion, if you will).
Try negotiating with the laws of gravity and physics the next time you find yourself in a storm, or falling from a great height.
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3335094#post3335094
EVM: I think you are attempting to distinguish between absolute truth and relative experience (or opinion, if you will).
Try negotiating with the laws of gravity and physics the next time you find yourself in a storm, or falling from a great height.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Letterman, if I were you I would not go along with this request. Grants trustworthiness is utterly central to the issue and this is the place to discuss it.
Grant's minions use the 'please start a new thread" tactic a lot [1] - any evidence that doesn't support their view they want moved elsewhere in the hope that it's forgotten. Don't fall for it. Take it as evidence they're running scared. [2]
The thread won't be pulled if we're all civil.
[1] They used it on me over the Rina/Rocna accusation.
[2] It was exactly that over the RIna/Rocna accusation.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I didn't say that I have any information. I said that there was lots of information contained within this and other threads.
I'm sorry but I have no intention of trawling through all the postings on your behalf.
evm1024
New member
Senseless banter and limited view. The moon is falling from a great height into our gravity well. It has been falling for quite some time and is quite useful. If you know the laws of physics and look further than a limited viewpoint you will see that truth here. There is no need to negotiate with physics. You must understand the rules....
That you have created a website dedicated to exposing Grant Kings misdeeds if your right. That website does not give you a corner on TRUTH or truth and being somewhat self serving does not act as an independent voice in your support.
Please do post on this thread if you have data on Rocna anchors that is useful. Please feel free to post on your other thread anything that you feel will be useful.
Moderators - should Letterman continue with his vendetta please ban him rather than pulling the thread. Thanks
smackdaddy
New member
I for one would advocate keeping this discussion here precisely because so much of the various viewpoints regarding all things Rocna has been inarguably shaped by Grant's posts and supposed evidence. With all that now deeply suspect, most, if not all, of the conclusions drawn regarding CMP's/Bambury's/Smith's/etc. motives, behaviors and actions are now equally suspect. Yes, the metallurgical and misleading marketing issues have been empirically shown through other sources (IMO) - but everything else is back off the table. And this is just as important to the sailing community as a bent anchor.
A thread focusing purely on Grant's misdeeds toward Steve is going to get pulled quicker than anything because it will get personal very quickly.
Letterman, if you have credible evidence that contradicts the Rocna story as presented by Grant - this is definitely the thread for that evidence. You just need to chill a bit and keep your posts professional - not personal.
A thread focusing purely on Grant's misdeeds toward Steve is going to get pulled quicker than anything because it will get personal very quickly.
Letterman, if you have credible evidence that contradicts the Rocna story as presented by Grant - this is definitely the thread for that evidence. You just need to chill a bit and keep your posts professional - not personal.
Letterman
N/A
Hi Toad,
Thanks for your feedback on this one.
Usually in forums of this nature, a Moderator will inform a poster if they are out of line, and give them an opportunity to edit, correct, or delete a post (didn't happen for me over at the Cruiser forum, but most other thread moderators do extend this courtesy).
I am comfortable responding to two different threads, and the [removed] link is now in the public domain of the Marine Industry, which contributes to building a profile of GNK.
Yes, I agree that GNK's trustworthiness (or lack of) is a key issue on this thread, and I am also aware that there may be a number of GNK "cheerleaders" who may be choking on their coffee with my arrival, and with the information I have bought with me. It is not in our nature to be comfortable with being proven wrong on an issue, regardless of the evidence in front of us (this seems to be a universal trait, not one confined to the marine industry).
I don't know who the Moderators are on the Forum, but I am happy to hear from them at 24-7@maxnet.co.nz or by private message if they feel that I at any time might be out of order?
Thanks for your feedback on this one.
Usually in forums of this nature, a Moderator will inform a poster if they are out of line, and give them an opportunity to edit, correct, or delete a post (didn't happen for me over at the Cruiser forum, but most other thread moderators do extend this courtesy).
I am comfortable responding to two different threads, and the [removed] link is now in the public domain of the Marine Industry, which contributes to building a profile of GNK.
Yes, I agree that GNK's trustworthiness (or lack of) is a key issue on this thread, and I am also aware that there may be a number of GNK "cheerleaders" who may be choking on their coffee with my arrival, and with the information I have bought with me. It is not in our nature to be comfortable with being proven wrong on an issue, regardless of the evidence in front of us (this seems to be a universal trait, not one confined to the marine industry).
I don't know who the Moderators are on the Forum, but I am happy to hear from them at 24-7@maxnet.co.nz or by private message if they feel that I at any time might be out of order?
Last edited by a moderator:
Letterman
N/A
EVM:
Your last post translated, as interpreted by me:
"I have decided what it is I am going to believe - now go away, and don't confuse me with the facts of the matter"
I wonder what I would find if I trawled through your posts in relation to this topic?
Fine, you don't wish to engage with the evidence, or to hear an alternative opinion that contradicts your own on this matter - I hear you.
Your last post translated, as interpreted by me:
"I have decided what it is I am going to believe - now go away, and don't confuse me with the facts of the matter"
I wonder what I would find if I trawled through your posts in relation to this topic?
Fine, you don't wish to engage with the evidence, or to hear an alternative opinion that contradicts your own on this matter - I hear you.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
+1.
Evidence of Kings's character only makes sense in this thread. It would be pointless to post it elsewhere.
I think we need to revisit the Rocna evidence again. I, for one, have been taking a lot of stuff for granted mrely because I thought King had been a reliable source of evidence in the past. That idea has been blown out of the water with these revelations.
For instance. Rocna say there were only a couple of batches of 420 anchors. King says there were thousands of Anchors. In the light of what we now know about King I would like to see the evidence for this. Did he *ever* provide any? I don't think he did.
Rocna say there was no increase in warranty returns. King says there was. Did he provide evidence of this? I'm not sure he did.
Last edited:
Coaster
Active member
A long time ago I suggested that if there really were lots of significantly defective Rocna anchors we'd have reports of failures occurring in the British Isles. As far as I can remember there have been none or very very few reported.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I think that you are too personally involved to be objective. What you have brought to this thread appears to damage GK's reputation, but you have not given us anything to to disprove anything which he has said.
If you have anything on the Rocna question let us see it. Do you have anything on the Rocna production figures, the quality control issues, the substitution of low grade materials? Do you have background information on anyone other than GK? Do you have any information of the switch from NZ production to China? Or the dealings with Manson?
I suspect that you are not really interested in the Rocna issue and are driven by a desire to discredit GK rather than to genuinely contribute to the Rocna debate.
evm1024
New member
You do not have any facts about Rocna anchors.
You have something to add in regards to Grant Kings dealings.
You appear to be having a hard time with people who do not agree with you.
You have no evidence in regards to Rocna anchors. You have presented what you claim facts in regards to Grant Kings dealing with you.
Because I do not share your convictions in regards to Grant King you have attacked me. How un civil.....
Storyline
New member
Toad, with respect, I get the feeling that you are really into conspiracy theories.
I think the new RINA thread that was started after pressure here was useful. It ran its course but like this new interjection it was off the central topic.
We want to find out the truth about whether Rocna anchors are safe not participate in a feud which has nothing to do with sailing.
The few posts that Letterman has made are more than adequate to give people a heads up as to whether GK is a reliable information source.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Which makes sense. If we assume they changed materials to lower costs, they we'd have to also assume that their warranty returns didn't jump as a result because then they'd make less money, not more.
So either the material was fit for purpose after all, or any non-fit-for-purpose material which lead to higher warranty returns was replaced *very* quickly.
Either way it suggests all is well with Rocna & AFAIK the only evidence we ever had that it wasn't was King's word.
Which has turned out to be worthless.
Last edited:
Letterman
N/A
Hi EVM,
While I do appreciate your enthusiasm, I would again remind you of this:
[removed]
Goodness me, if you regard my recent dialogue as an "attack" - may I respectfully suggest that you may need to grow a thicker skin? We're in a very public debate about a "hot topic".
What I "do" or "do not have" will become clearer in time - thus you may need to be a little more cautious with your emphatic statements on this one.
Unlike GNK - I don't breach my agreements (see above link).
While I do appreciate your enthusiasm, I would again remind you of this:
[removed]
Goodness me, if you regard my recent dialogue as an "attack" - may I respectfully suggest that you may need to grow a thicker skin? We're in a very public debate about a "hot topic".
What I "do" or "do not have" will become clearer in time - thus you may need to be a little more cautious with your emphatic statements on this one.
Unlike GNK - I don't breach my agreements (see above link).
Last edited by a moderator:
toad_oftoadhall
New member
The central topic is the quality of Rocna's anchors. If it had been true that Rocna bribed Rina that would have been significant evidence in that debate.
The fact Grant's Rina claim has turned out to be untrue is also significant evidence.
Letterman's information is also directly relevant to the central topic.
The fact that time and again King's supporters demand any evidence that the feel supports Rocna in any way is moved elsewhere says a great deal.
The side that is scared of facts is, by definition, almost certain to be wrong.
Storyline
New member
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I'm staggered that, with everything which has been revealed so far, you are able to take the position that everything in the Rocna world is all rosy and ticketty boo. You are now making assumptions about their warranty claims without any evidence at all....absolutely none.
If I were to go for one of your conspiracy theories I would be asking what deal you have come to with Rocna.
evm1024
New member
Once again you point to a website... Do you own this site?
WE are in a debate about a hot topic, YOU are in a program founded on your desire to bring Grant King to "his knees".
It has been duly noted that Grant King has a history. And a not very nice one at that. Thank you for your contribution to this Anchor Thread.
Your continual posting of the link to your site is not designed to advance our understanding of the known facts and speculated facts about the steel and strength of Rocna anchors.
I get your point as do all others who read this thread. You are overplaying your hand.
In fact is not your website designed for a single reason?
As a trained counselor and mediator how would you define your actions here if you were your own client? Please don't psyc me - it is unbecoming to your profession.
We disagree on what you would have us think about Grant King. we agree on the import of his past dealings as regards to his involvement in Rocna. We can each decide how much weight to place on the information you have presented.
Regards