An Open Letter To This Commmunity

[NightFlyer]

Regarding the posts recently deleted from the DPI thread:

As I stated in the now closed Stasi/Gestapo thread, my comment on the DPI review thread that was deleted was meant to be taken half seriously and half in jest, as Josh previously affirmatively and expressly stated that anyone with Bill Robertson-esque modifications on their car would be blacklisted from doing business with DPI.

It starts at the linked to post and continues throughout the thread:

http://dmctoday.com/showthread.php?6...ll=1#post11287

Many of Bill's modifications could be called red-necky or butchery by those who don't really know or respect what he has done to his car, as his mods have been so attacked as such on this forum many times in the past. Even the #2 man Mike had previously publicly stated that the car wisdom found amongst Today members (specifically referring to both Bill R and Steve Rice) was akin to "duct tape and lawn mower parts."

As Josh revealed in the thread, his reluctance to sell to AdmiralSenn is over concerns about the reputation of his products being used in modifications/projects that he personally doesn't approve of, which AdmiralSenn openly and freely admitted were of the kind that Bill's mods have been likened to on this forum - an admitted basket case cobbled together in frankenstein fashion on a budget. And IMHO, there's nothing wrong with such, as that's what the car hobby is truly all about.

And while Josh has every right as a business person to refuse service to those that he deems are unworthy for whatever reason (so long as such reason doesn't violate federal protected classes laws), I can't help but to see what he ultimately did as being akin to the kind of blacklisting that he was talking about in the thread over on Today.

Accordingly, my comment which was deleted from that thread, which attempted to convey one possibility as to why Josh wasn't getting back to AdmiralSenn, which I've always maintained was half serious and half in jest, turned out to be extremely accurate. And had I not attempted to clarify the situation such as I did, the community never would have known this, as my comment alluding to it had been deleted by an admin for no reason given.

And while Chad's comment did admittedly contain some hearsay, he should have been allowed the opportunity to either substantiate such with evidence or voluntarily withdraw his comment. Regardless, the non-hearsay elements of his comment should have been permitted to remain in tact.

I also found it quite interesting that the comments at issue were deleted within a matter of minutes - the admin responsible had the time to delete them so quickly, but didn't have the time to offer an explanation of their action over 12 hours after-the-fact? Having been viewing the 'who's online' section during that interlude, I can say for certain that DPI Josh was PM'ing someone as soon as those comments hit the thread. Magically, admins began logging on, and then within minutes of the posts going live, they were deleted. But not a single admin had the time to offer an explanation, despite having publicly explained why they closed threads (of completely innocent OPs, BTW) wherein they experienced problems with Prof Hinkley - SERIOUSLY?!?! That doesn't look very good, IMHO.

The comments definitely shouldn't have been deleted, absent some sort of collusion with the vendor, as that's the only logical conclusion that remained, which is why I asserted such as I did.

The community at large has freely derided and openly attacked blacklisting practices since their known existence - and for good reason, as it's bad business IMHO, not to mention how such practices eventually led to the downfall of what formerly was the largest source of DeLorean parts and service in the world.

DeLorean1 / Ed Bernstein blacklisted VINs when he perceived their current owners to be troublemakers, whereas Josh is now just blacklisting the current owners that he perceives as being troublemakers. Otherwise, there's no discernible difference here. Ed also adamantly and openly held himself/business out as being second to none and the best when it came to DeLoreans, while constantly and consistently trash talking his competition, and I'll let Josh's own assertions speak for DPI in such regard, but needless to say, it's an eerily similar pattern that one can observe.

Good day to all,
--Josh S.
#1798

[Delorean Industries]

The highly confidential DPI no sell list has been leaked:


DPI NO SELL LIST

BUSINESS:
DMC/AFFILIATES
DAP/SPECIALTAUTO

OWNER:
Josh S
Bill
Dracula


Senn did not burn the bridge for the record. Once things calm down I will contact him.


Because you need this explained to you I will spell it out. Declining to sell a service and or provide doesn't mean that you are black listed. You are obviously confused on this and I will make it a point to clear this up. Just because I don't feel comfortable with one thing doesn't mean I'm not with another. I'm sure this goes for virtually every business out there. Hopefully you understand this terminology in use above.

[Dracula]

As I have told Tamir himself, I did not appreciate the insinuation that my comments were hearsay and slander. For something to be slanderous, it has to be a false statement.

While it is no secret that I don't like Josh at DPI, I have not said anything about him that is not 100% true. I do not appreciate that he had accused me of doing so publicly and didn't give me the option to rebut such accusations.

To prove that I was speaking fact, here is another thread to verify that, in this month, DPI has failed to address customer's concerns:

Just noticed an email pop up. My order has been cancelled and money refunded with no explanation given. Guess I'm blacklisted from DPI now.

still no word on the ham n cheese.

http://www.dmctoday.com/showthread.p...PI-parts-order

Here is a post where Josh himself boasts of deceiving DMCH:

Can someone please explain to me how I make money? Apparently the experts here know. I can't seem to figure it out....... I'm just so confused with cars coming from all over the world outside of my defined "radius". Or the 70 plus exhaust systems sold this year to date. Or how that my superior manufacturing techniques net DPI massive profits while keeping the components affordable and priced competitively with my competition. Or my huge NOS stock pile accumulated from years of purchasing inventories and yes of course on occasion deceiving DMC and landing 10%. This is just too much for me to handle. I mean if the above map is true I'm upside down and I don't even know it. I better start letting the work force go and look into bankruptcy immediately......

http://www.dmctoday.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post18676

I suppose that the part about Josh boasting about deceiving DMCH could be considered hearsay, but seeing as I heard it directly from Josh, wouldn't that make it a confession?

I did not have the chance to verify the information in my post as truthful, as it was deleted in minutes.

My post also advised AdmiralSenn to, instead, try contacting the folks at DMCMW as I've never had anything but positive interactions with them and am presently working on a laundry list of obscure parts to be picked up, ideally, sometime this fall.

[NightFlyer]

The highly confidential DPI no sell list has been leaked:


DPI NO SELL LIST

BUSINESS:
DMC/AFFILIATES
DAP/SPECIALTAUTO

OWNER:
Josh S
Bill
Dracula

Senn did not burn the bridge for the record. Once things calm down I will contact him.

Good to know - thanks for clearing that up

Though FYI - Senn felt as if he was on the blacklist, or at least that's what he conveyed to me anyway.

Because you need this explained to you I will spell it out. Declining to sell a service and or provide doesn't mean that you are black listed. You are obviously confused on this and I will make it a point to clear this up. Just because I don't feel comfortable with one thing doesn't mean I'm not with another. I'm sure this goes for virtually every business out there. Hopefully you understand this terminology in use above.

So a do not sell/service list is not the same as a blacklist.

You're right - I am confused by that statement, as the universally accepted definition of the term 'blacklist' would appear to disagree with you

BTW - Even though I'm blacklisted, I still personally have nothing against Josh, his products, or his services.

I'm able to remain completely objective about the whole thing, though I can't help but noticing and mentioning the similarities of such a practice to those of the now defunct DeLorean 1 / Ed B....

Just sayin....

[Delorean Industries]

No longer carrying the oem fuel pump. The customer was advised of this and refunded. Your point is irrelevant.

If I need something from DMCH on a rare occasion I get a hold of it. They are paid in full, I get what I needed. It's not illegal. Your point is irrelevant.




Do not sell black listing of the few people/companies listed is different from not selling a part or service.

EXAMPLE:

I don't want to do the engine portion perhaps because of a conflict of interests. Doesn't mean I won't do brakes and suspension work. Get it?

[Michael]

Actually that thread worked itself out (probably because it wasn't closed or threads deleted), but DPI did in fact call me and everything is cool and they took care of it to my satisfaction. For anyone interested just read the thread....to the end.

To add to DPI's concerns, I have refused work to people when I was a service manager at Mercedes. A (rather demanding) customer brought his E class in for brake pads. Problem was his rotors were way past minimum thickness and I told him he needed new front rotors as well. Probably an extra 250.00 give or take. He absolutely refused so I decided not to open the shop up to any liability. Now I knew the rotors probably wouldn't fail, I was more concerned about him screwing up his calipers and upon the next brake pad replacement I'm sure he would blame us for needing a pair of 600.00 calipers. "Why didnt you warn me??

It just wasn't worth it for a brake job. Had it been cosmetic, no problem cut corners, but when it comes to anything safety related we refused to cut corners. He got all pissy and I really didn't care. I have no concern for people with 60k cars who will not spend a few hundred to stop, but will most definitely find the money for the illuminated door sill option or the matching luggage.

It happened at a Volvo dealership. A customer sued the dealer for her timing belt breaking even though they told her it needed to be replaced, she refused, the belt eventually broke and the pistons ate the valves, and she got the repair paid for.

Don't blame the vendor, blame the " sue happy jacked up blame everyone but yourself" legal system.

[Dracula]

No longer carrying the oem fuel pump. The customer was advised of this and refunded. Your point is irrelevant.

If I need something from DMCH on a rare occasion I get a hold of it. They are paid in full, I get what I needed. It's not illegal. Your point is irrelevant.

The complaint wasn't that you didn't carry it, the complaint was that there was no notification prior to him publicly complaining and calling you out; the exact same thing that happened with AdmiralSenn.

My point is that it had happened before to other individuals in the recent past; my point is 100% valid.

If I need something from DMCH on a rare occasion I get a hold of it. They are paid in full, I get what I needed. It's not illegal. Your point is irrelevant.

My point was that you admitted to conning another business that you work with; it may not be a voluntary relationship, but you do work with them nonetheless.

You say, in your own words, that you have engaged in "on occasion deceiving DMC and landing 10%."

Again, my point is 100% valid.

Do not sell black listing of the few people/companies listed is different from not selling a part or service.

EXAMPLE:

I don't want to do the engine portion perhaps because of a conflict of interests. Doesn't mean I won't do brakes and suspension work. Get it?

Even if we go by your terms, the literal definition of a "blacklist" is as follows:

black·list
ˈblakˌlist
noun
noun: blacklist; plural noun: blacklists
1.
a list of people or products viewed with suspicion or disapproval.


How that is any different from your "no-sell" list, I do not know.

[NightFlyer]

As I have told Tamir himself, I did not appreciate the insinuation that my comments were hearsay and slander. For something to be slanderous, it has to be a false statement.

While it is no secret that I don't like Josh at DPI, I have not said anything about him that is not 100% true. I do not appreciate that he had accused me of doing so publicly and didn't give me the option to rebut such accusations.

To prove that I was speaking fact, here is another thread to verify that, in this month, DPI has failed to address customer's concerns:



http://www.dmctoday.com/showthread.p...PI-parts-order

Here is a post where Josh himself boasts of deceiving DMCH:



http://www.dmctoday.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post18676

I suppose that the part about Josh boasting about deceiving DMCH could be considered hearsay, but seeing as I heard it directly from Josh, wouldn't that make it a confession?

I did not have the chance to verify the information in my post as truthful, as it was deleted in minutes.

My post also advised AdmiralSenn to, instead, try contacting the folks at DMCMW as I've never had anything but positive interactions with them and am presently working on a laundry list of obscure parts to be picked up, ideally, sometime this fall.

Hearsay is an often confused term by those outside the legal profession.

Unless you're referring to something that happened directly to you, or something that you directly personally observed, it's legally considered to be hearsay.

The way in which you worded your initial comment with the qualifier "I've heard" suggested that your assertions may have been premised upon second hand information that you received from an uninvolved third party, which had that been the case, then I'd absolutely agree with their deletion, as such would have been hearsay, and hearsay is NEVER good evidence.

As you've been able to substantiate your original assertions with the evidence of posts from Josh himself, it's clear that what you meant when you used the qualifier "I've heard," was in regard to a direct personal observation that you had made, and NOT second hand information that you received from an uninvolved third party, as those accusing you of hearsay mistakenly believed.

Accordingly, there was no hearsay contained within your original post, and I for one apologize for supporting such a theory.

But please realize that those who did erroneously assert that your original post contained hearsay, myself included, did in fact make an honest mistake in misinterpreting your use of the qualifier "I've heard," as such is extremely easy to do.

I hope that clarified the hearsay issue, and again, I'm sorry that I insinuated such, but I was always skeptical of you using hearsay to prove anything, which is why I advocated that you should have been permitted the chance to either prove your assertions or voluntarily submit to having your post deleted if you were unable to.

Again, for the record - Chad's initial post contained no hearsay. Those who asserted otherwise did so because of a legitimate misinterpretation of the qualifier that Chad had used in his original post.

[Dracula]

I understand that my qualifier was not the best choice for the situation and led to some assumptions. I will change the way I bring information to the attention of others in the future to avoid such confusion.

I also appreciate the apology for the implication and that was what I wanted out of Tamir when I had approached him, yet he told me off and simply stated that I was wrong because it sounded like hearsay. Perhaps if the original post had remained, I would have had the chance to rectify the situation.

[NightFlyer]

Don't blame the vendor, blame the " sue happy jacked up blame everyone but yourself" legal system.

I fully agree with that, and expressly stated so over on the DPI thread.

But Josh counted with the comment that his concern wasn't about legal liability (which as I pointed out, a business is not liable if someone uses a product in a manner that the business didn't proscribe to (or reasonably anticipate and warn the consumer about - which BTW, I adamantly disagree with such legal precedent) upon selling them the product - that would be the purchaser's own fault), but rather with his reputation in the community should his products be used in projects that he hasn't personally approved of.

He was also concerned about customers misusing his products, and then in bad faith bitching about / blaming the product publicly instead of accepting personal responsibility for their own screw-ups. And while that's a valid concern, it's one that every business engaged in selling a product has to contend with.

How many times has Hervey, or DMCH, or other vendors' parts been blamed on the forums, when it was really the fault of the customer because of a bad/faulty installation of the part?

If Josh truly wants to avoid that, then the only logical solution would be is to exclusively provide his parts for in-house service only, and no external parts sales, period. Of course, that would kill a lot of his potential business prospects within the community, as many owners, such as myself, prefer to work on their own cars.