Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[evm1024]

Errr, to work out what the truth is. That's what evidence is for!

HTH.

Toad,

He is not requesting evidence for us or for our advantage. He is doing it for his own reasons.

At this point all the evidence is going one way. I will be interested in see what he releases in 72 hours. And if it is not directly related to the rocna sage I would rather have a link to his release.

Ask yourself what boat does Steve have? What anchor does he use?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Delfin. Rocna's admission. Neeves reports. Photo's. Manson. Sarca. Fortress.
You have read the threads?

What is it with you people who can't be arsed to read the information and simply expect others to compile it for you? Only a few posts ago you were asking that somebody should collate everything for you. Now Letterman is asking the same. Are you not able to read?

Sorry, just to be clear I don't think there's any dispute that Rocna's website listed a spec that didn't match their anchors at some point and for some duration in time. I've seen the evidence for that.

When I say evidence I mean evidence for the gazzilion other claims made by King. I'll list some that really interest me:

1) Rocna bribed Rina. Where's your evidence?

2) Warrantry claims increased to a significant degree when the spec changed. Where's your evidence?

3) Rocna claim a couple of batches of Chinese anchors were made to the different spec. Grant claims many thousands. Where's your evidence to support Grant's version?

I'd be interested in answers to all those. I'm dubious about all these claims but the facts could show them to be correct.

Try not to be evasive.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Steve's (Letterman) reason for posting in this thread is not to further our understanding of what happened with Rocna anchors and the various players involved.

No, but his posts *have* furthered our understanding of what happened with Rocna anchors and the various players involved, because we now know we need to revisit claims which we previously took at face value.

So regardless of his motives, he's helped a lot, and I'm grateful for it.

Thanks Letterman.

 

[Storyline]

I don't think Neeves article conflicts with that statement at all. Do you?

Which article are you referring to ?

I am referring to his many posts using evidence not supplied by GK

Maybe I have missed something.

 

[Stork_III]

I have no counter - none is needed.

Steve's (Letterman) reason for posting in this thread is not to further our understanding of what happened with Rocna anchors and the various players involved.

It appears that his reason is to discredit Grant King as much as possible. Further it appears that Steve is intent on heaping as much trouble on Grant King as he can and it appears to be based on Grant's dealings with him.

It appears that Grant King is a scumbag and that we need to weigh his posts carefully. THis does not remove the truthful data that may be in his posts.

I resent that the thread has been hijacked into a smear job against Grant King no matter how deserved it may be.

Perhaps Steve can tell us what his motives are for posting here. Possible answers are:

1) I worry that you folks do not know who Grant is and may make a wrong choice RE anchors.
2) I hate Grant for what he did to me and my family. I can't get satisfaction in the courts so I am intending to destroy his life anywhere and everywhere.
3) something else

Regards

I think your 3) is nearest to the truth about his motive. His exposure of GK on here serves no useful purpose for his website campaign against GK, but only benefits the anchor manufacturer, or am I being too cynical.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Toad,

He is not requesting evidence for us or for our advantage. He is doing it for his own reasons.

At this point all the evidence is going one way. I will be interested in see what he releases in 72 hours. And if it is not directly related to the rocna sage I would rather have a link to his release.

Ask yourself what boat does Steve have? What anchor does he use?

I don't care about his motives. He's provided the following verifiable facts about Grants record:

[removed]


I'm grateful.

I'm also grateful to King for the verifiable facts he provided. His motives were pretty similar - to get revenge on an employer who had dismissed him and accused him of theft. Facts are facts, the source doesn't matter.

Where we all went wrong was when we started to take King's word for things without checking.

 

[evm1024]

I think your 3) is nearest to the truth about his motive. His exposure of GK on here serves no useful purpose for his website campaign against GK, but only benefits the anchor manufacturer, or am I being too cynical.

This is why I asked point blank if he was getting any compensation from Rocna et al.

 

[smackdaddy]

Steve's (Letterman) reason for posting in this thread is not to further our understanding of what happened with Rocna anchors and the various players involved.

It appears that his reason is to discredit Grant King as much as possible. Further it appears that Steve is intent on heaping as much trouble on Grant King as he can and it appears to be based on Grant's dealings with him.

Can you not see the irony in this? What was Grant's reason for posting in this thread? Altruism? Didn't he have a bit of a discrediting agenda himself?

It appears that Grant King is a scumbag and that we need to weigh his posts carefully. THis does not remove the truthful data that may be in his posts.

I do agree with you there - but as has been pointed out repeatedly above - how do you now parse out of his posts what is truthful and what is not?

Apart from the taunting by Letterman - which I kind of understand because I'd be pissed as hell too - he's thus far posted what appear to be facts about Grant backed up by articles, etc.

Regardless, the NZH article is really all you need to reach a conclusion on Grant's true character. If you really feel the need to dismiss all that as some kind of "smear job against Grant King", then there are much larger problems here than bent anchors.

Even so, this thread is a lot of fun.

 

[Storyline]

When I say evidence I mean evidence for the gazzilion other claims made by King. I'll list some that really interest me:

1) Rocna bribed Rina. Where's your evidence?

2) Warrantry claims increased to a significant degree when the spec changed. Where's your evidence?

3) Rocna claim a couple of batches of Chinese anchors were made to the different spec. Grant claims many thousands. Where's your evidence to support Grant's version?

1) That is just some froth round the edge of the issue

2) Ditto

3) As they say on various other forums (not meant to be offensive) but please RTFF - at least all of this thread. I just cannot believe you have read and digested all that has been said.

I for one, and I suspect many Rocna owners, are just concerned to know if our anchors are safe. Opinionated posts such as yours do not get us any further to the truth.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

1) Rocna bribed Rina. Where's your evidence?.

If you remember I told you many times that I thought that you were making a mountain out of a molehill with the RINA story and it was you who was convinced that it was a "biggy". We've only got GK's word for it. Bumbury isn't saying anything....he wouldn't would he?

2) Warrantry claims increased to a significant degree when the spec changed. Where's your evidence??.

Who has said that? I've not seen the claim other than in your guesses about what happened. Don't put words in others mouths.

3) Rocna claim a couple of batches of Chinese anchors were made to the different spec. Grant claims many thousands. Where's your evidence to support Grant's version??.

You're wrong again. Rocna have confirmed that most of the production was not to the Bisplate 80 spec. That is why they have now downgraded the spec to the 600 spec.....so that they claim that it is "fit for purpose" rather than "as advertised". If you had followed the thread you would have realised that there have been three grades of material. The Bisplate one which Peter Smith insisted he would never compromise on, a lower grade (which they now say is OK) and an even lower grade (420).
Much of this debate is about the Smiths claim to use high spec materials because it was an integral part of the design and Holdfast's quiet switch to lower grade materials. You do understand the story?

 

[Stork_III]

This is why I asked point blank if he was getting any compensation from Rocna et al.

But he answered "no". He wouldn't lie would he?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

But he answered "no". He wouldn't lie would he?

Not another conspiracy theory?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Who has said that? I've not seen the claim other than in your guesses about what happened.

King.

You do understand the story?

Well I know what *I* find interesting. You seem to be saying I'm finding the wrong things interesting. Sorry about that.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

3) As they say on various other forums (not meant to be offensive) but please RTFF - at least all of this thread. I just cannot believe you have read and digested all that has been said.

So the evidence is all of the thread? Are you sure?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

King.

Where did he say that?

 

[Storyline]

I
Where we all went wrong was when we started to take King's word for things without checking.

You might have done but many others here on this forum and on other forums around the world did not.

 

[Neeves]

I've said it before, what a lot goes on when Australia sleeps. Letterman seemed to work through the night, all credit to him. Letterman, I have no problem with your joining the forum - just lower the tone, make sure what you say does not have the thread closed down, as Cruisers Forum.

I have no intention of providing Letterman, or anyone else, other than a publisher, with 'hard' evidence. But I will point out that the truth of the RINA certification and published by YM was based on email correspondence with the RINA office in Shanghai. YM were comfortable with the evidence, their legal team was comfortable, I'n not sure why Letterman might think he has rights beyond the publishers.

Grant's information has actually been quite limited. He has said Holdfast changed the steel specification (prior to his appointment) becuase of commercial reasons. I cannot confirm the latter, the only issues I find in the file is technical, but the first documentation (I have) of the change, in steel for the shank, occured in an email from Brian Bambury in Sept 2008, 6 months before Grant joined. There is other confirmatory documentation from the factory in Shanghai. As far as I can ascertain this documentation was not available to Grant, as if it had been he would have made mention, he did not. I have no indication that the Shanghai factory document is in the Holdfast files, at all - but it might be (though that does not mean Grant had access).

Grant has give schedules of shipments of 420 shanks from China. Grant has also provided images and some detail of bent anchors. As far as I am aware no-one has posted anything that Grant knows that Grant did not post himself earlier.

So Steve/letterman - you are suggesting Grant made the change to the steel in the shanks, open up a bit with your evidence. You suggest you have investigated for 3 weeks and you have turned up information that CMP/Smiths/Bamburys would have given their eye teeth to expose. They did not, excuse me if I am slightly sceptical.

To me this is the nub to your statement - you investigate for 3 weeks and find evidence that the Smiths/Bamburys would have wanted.

I am not going to engage in a debate with Letterman, other than the above, until the debate moves forward on Rocna anchors. I am not interested in finding out about the backgrounds of individuals, there are plenty here obviuosly capable of doing that, I can read their posts, I can make my decisions.

I am interested in finding out the truth about the Rocna deceptions - and I will focus my attentions there. When the information will stand upto public scrutiny, its run through a marine publishers legal team - then I will release the information.

Jonathan

 

[Rigger Mortice]

You might have done but many others here on this forum and on other forums around the world did not.

Yup.
Neeves, in particular, has checked and cross checked continually....just a good basic journalistic desire to get things as right as possible. He has confirmed much of what we have been told.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Where did he say that?

Brillliant. I get accused of not reading every post and then it turns out other's haven't been paying attention!

I said this:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3269081&postcount=967

King responded with this:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3269119&postcount=972

Funnily enough, AFAIK he never did come back with numbers.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Yup.
Neeves, in particular, has checked and cross checked continually....just a good basic journalistic desire to get things as right as possible. He has confirmed much of what we have been told.

He's just refused to confirm anything:

I have no intention of providing Letterman, or anyone else, other than a publisher, with 'hard' evidence.