NOT HAPPY! TwinZ Rear Bar

Great idea

baz, give this guy a new bar, one of the ones "floating around Sydney"... problem solved.

 

That would be to easy, why would you loose a few $100 dollars for so many negitive posts,
PS
Tryed ringing your mobile, no answer, John UAS a public PM, as asked,
ross

 

And your interest in this thread is .....?

 

my suggestion would provide the fairest, most equitable and economic outcome for both parties ... it can be effected quickly and painlessly for an ideal result ...

all it now requires is genuine resolve by UAS to do the right thing to close down this unfortunate incident.

 

Well, there's first for everything.
A thread staying on topic!

All I can say it's a good thing mine didn't turn up like the others.
If the offer of compensation wasn't up to scratch, I'd let someone in the know settle this asap.
They're called a "judge".
I sure feel for these guys and to be still farting about about crazy.
Someone man up and help these poor people.
You want them to pay for your leasons too?

 

Baz all the bars are long sold so while a great idea this really isn't an option as you'd have to take another buyers bar which just passes on the issue.

 

I appreciate what you are saying, Lidz ......

nevertheless, my option is available and there for the taking .... there are bars out there, in Sydney, not urgently needed for fitment ( the donor could have their bar replaced at a later point).

all it will take is genuine commitment and resolve to end this fiasco.

 

This suggestion is so incredibly flawed that it deserves to be nominated for the 'Post of the Decade' in the "Go directly to Jail, Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200" category.
Can anyone imagine just how well such a move would hold up in the resulting Court case?
Just who would be making the decision on which purchaser would have their new bar confiscated(common sense would dictate that repossessing a bar from someone in QLD would be the best way to expedite this matter, as it would be a quicker solution for all concerned)?
Good Luck!

 

Court case, what court case???
Surprised the GB organiser did not suggest this solution. Perhaps that's who Baz is alluding to?

 

Chilli i read that suggestion and thought it was a good suggestion. He did not say to confiscate anyones bar but the way i read it was that maybe there was someone out there who was prepared to help out a fellow Z owner if they had no plans to use there bar anytime soon on the proviso that they would get a bar replaced a.s.a.p . Not that bad of an idea. I see this thread has really started a bitching session between a few members when the real problem is only the was he has been treated by the supplier. To save a few bucks they have done a hell of a lot of damage to there reputation. Buisnesses spend a lot of money to get a good reputation but some don't understand that having happy customers is priceless. Not a dig at anyone but the suppliers handling of this situation. The supplier should be the one getting quotes and organising the repair ( doing all the running around ) as this is how they can turn bad publicity into a win for them by showing how well they look after people when things go wrong. Thats how you build a great reputation in buisness.
Just another 2 cents worth.

 

The Court Case instigated by the owner of the second bar which is diverted to Scott.
UAS would be liable for having failed to supply that owner with HIS bar(after having received payment for same)and subsequently giving it to someone else.
A clear case of fraud.
Not too hard to understand(unlike the suggestions of unused bars "floating around" in Sydney).

 

If it was possible to "get a bar replaced asap" then this would not have become the shit-fight that it currently is(or haven't you realised this fact)?

 

lolathread

 

Removing Smoke Screens and Mirrors ....

Twin Terror, thank you for your insightful comprehension and for so aptly understanding and clarifying my suggestion for the benefit of the tired old pensioner. Despite claims to the contrary, it seems that neither Chili nor Rob260 are prepared to stay with the topic nor contribute to a solution.

Thank you Chili and Rob260 for your non-constructive and, indeed, destructive posts. My suggestion was presented in a genuine attempt to find a solution acceptable to both parties by removing the emotional pricing and other personal nonsense complicating the issue. It was only posted after long consideration of all possible options.

In attempting to shoot the messenger, you have clearly and definitively exposed the reality of your respective positions. It is now eminently apparent that neither of you have any genuine intent or resolve to find an equitable outcome in a situation created close to home, solely by one very bad business decision - to go cheap and nasty with one ply bubble wrap. UAS took a conscious decision to gamble on packaging, to self insure on this decision and it went wrong. This is an indisputable fact as is the consequent obligation falling on the supplier.

TO RESPOND TO CHILI:
For a considerable period, I have elected to ignore your infantile, irrelevant, off-topic nonsense and personal abuse. Your latest effort to ignore the topic and to denigrate me personally as well as a balanced, reasonable and sensible suggestion simply broadcasts to the world, the so sad and pathetic levels to which you have descended ; how your self appointed position as Defender of the Faith (and the indefensible) has reduced your capacity for sound judgement to the point of utter irrelevance, if not base stupidity.

To put it simply, if you have nothing constructive to offer in searching for a solution for a member who has suffered from an act of little less than gross negligence, then quite frankly you should stick to your Mandolin Phlucking !!!

- To the specifics:

 The only thing "incredibly flawed" here is your ever present propensity to misrepresent, to misquote, to quote out of context, to create irrelevant smokescreens and to conveniently create your own "straw man" to support your personnally questionable and insidious position.

 At no point did I suggest that a bar be confiscated. The suggestion of possible Fraud and Court cases is equally demented. You know better than I, and now confirmed, that there are bars available in Sydney on which UAS could negotiate as a replacement if a genuine intent is there to resolve this matter.

TO RESPOND TO ROB260:
Sorry, but NO, I was not referring to you and I was NOT/NOT aware that you were a participant and had a bar !!!! As far as I am aware, you were not listed as a participant. My suggestion was in the hope that UAS could show some initiative and intent, to move to a proactive mode and contact Sydney participants with a replacement offer - hardly rocket science and relatively cost free. So, sorry to disappoint you but no miracles needed, no pejorative "pontificating", nor the spurious intent with which you have clearly responded.

However, you have opened the door that I had hoped for. You have an acknowledged and recognised personal relationship with UAS. Via G/Bs, you have been personally responsible for moving many thousands of Forum dollars to UAS. How appropriate would it now be for the long established Rob260/UAS combination to rise above the morass, to step up to the plate and do the right thing, to demonstrate decent business practices, principles and ethics befitting this Forum. UAS has stated that it has a Courier visiting the Sunshine Coast so delivery and collection is simple and cost free as is my suggestion.

TO CONCLUDE: My suggestion is directly related to topic - a member has invested $1000.00 and received a damaged product. A clear liability rests with the supplier to provide/restore that item in/to a condition as and for which it was sold.

A reasonable, simple and economic solution IS available to the supplier to resolve this issue without further delay ? all that is now required is genuine intent and positive action by the supplier.

MY APOLOGIES TO THE FORUM FOR THE LENGTH OF THIS MISSIVE - IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I CONSIDERED IT ESSENTIAL.

 

Very few others consider it so, I am on that list.
You lost all credibility when you decided to divert the issue to one of denigrating the GB function involving Rob260 and UAS.
Please inform those of us who do not agree with that solution to this issue of a damaged bar, how your post was in any way related to helping get a resolution.
The remainder of your input has been of even less value.
You may have a lofty opinion of your worth in this thread, I do not share it.
You were on the warpath before UAS had even been advised of a problem(but don't let facts get in the way).
As a result of your delusional crap(and my lack of self control in answering you)I will most probably be banned, so you will have achieved your desired result(but the real topic of this thread will still be awaiting a solution).

 

wow 9 pages and the bar still hasn't been repaired, what a cluster ****

 

Shoot Both parties and let god sort em out

Apart from that, the next best option is:

 

I have taken the time to re-read all the current posts(by me)contained in this thread.

I am unable to find one single sentence that could be construed as "abusive", "denigration", or "irrelevant to the current topic"(except my short joke with Tektrader) nor can I find anything that could loosely be shown to be "destructive" in intent.
I can only conclude that my accuser is totally in error.

 

Change your preference to 40 posts per page, then it fits in 5 (for now)

Well certainly if I was local and I didn't "need my bar immediately". I'd offer to swap mine, on the condition that Scott's bar be repaired to the manufacturers spec before I received it.
I agree that there is not an "onus" on anyone to do any such thing, but desperate times lead to desperate measures, and efforts to bring a swift resolution could call for some out of the box thinking????