Jump to content

C W Boatmover


Disused Account

Featured Posts

15 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I looked for the usual Post Office signs but could not see any, but that would be one explanation for the address. However, should it not be a post restante or C/O address in that case. Still not very professional.

 

Screenshot_20230207-084151_Earth.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

Along with photographic records of a large number of boats he's moved, and a lot of thank-yous from satisfied customers.

 

Of course this could all be made up, but that seems extremely unlikely given that most of  the boats are clearly identifiable by name... 😉

 

But then some posters on here are so convinced that Facebook is the work of the devil that they'll refuse to go and look... 😞

 

For me, it is not a question of the work of the devil. It is a question of how easy it is to sort the good guys from charlatans, and Facebook etc. do not make that easy. With a website and domain, potential customers can do a "who is" look up to get basic information from third party sources. I doubt you can do that with Facebook and am certain Facebook would not provide it without a court order, they may demand it be from a USA court.

 

View almost any consumer protection programme or read consumer champion pieces in the papers, and it seems to me that the social media companies are vastly over-represented as the source of a variety of scams. Based on the OP's first post (since heavily edited) I think the conclusion this might be not all it seems was a fair one at the time. Now, as more information has gradually become apparent, it seems that the OP was not as professional as he could have been with his publicity and presentation. Making superlative claims about one's business also raises red flags in many peoples minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

The co-op thing must be suspicious. 

 

What sort of people who spend a lot of time on boats could possibly need an accomodation address?  

 

/Sarcasm 

 

 

 

My reply to that is what professional business tries to operate from a hidden accommodation address? It is easy to see why doing so may seem attractive, but it would be better if it was acknowledged as an accommodation address with the reason why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

My advice to you CW boatmover is to stick to Facebook. The likely hood of finding any dinosaurs on this forum that requires their boat moving is slim.

 

Most on here don't own a boat. Those that do probably don't require your services. 

 

If you want an argument though or technical advice, you've come to the right place. 

 

My advice would be to think about the questions raised and try to address them. Then his publicity will look more professional and give potential customers more confidence that it is a legitimate business. If anyone thinks it has the look of a potential scam or an amateur setup, they will look elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

My advice would be to think about the questions raised and try to address them. Then his publicity will look more professional and give potential customers more confidence that it is a legitimate business. If anyone thinks it has the look of a potential scam or an amateur setup, they will look elsewhere.

Sure, but he already appears to have a large quantity of satisfied customers on Facebook, so must be doing something right. Word of mouth is a powerful tool in the small world of boating 

 

I suppose, as he is in search of more customers, the website in the pipeline as suggested above will give a more professional look to his business, but chances are he didn't get that prompt from here. 

Edited by rusty69
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, haggis said:

good that both have said they have listened but really it shouldn't take a message from a mod to make adults see how childish they are being. 

 

If you look at the timings it had ceased long before a moderator intervened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, haggis said:

But it went on for far too long! You could both have carried on the exchanges by PM 

 

But are you not just as guilty of trying to start an argument?

 

The problem sometimes on here is people complaining about the behaviour of others when they themselves indulge in the exact same behaviour. All comments after PD's last post are purely superfluous.

 

The whole spat had died a natural death.

 

Anyway I think it has been established that Connor is running a legit boat moving business.

 

Interestingly he also gets some stick on the forums partner Facebook page too - mainly because some perceive he posts on there too often, when what he appears to do is post as he is moving his customers boats. You would think people would find such things interesting, on a boating related FB page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bizzard said:

My mums old Co-Op Divi number was 365748.

 

 

My Mothers was 174446 - and in the 50s I used to call in on my walk home from school (3 miles) and get some sweets and said 'put on the Divi number' I don't know if she ever noticed the Divi was not as big as it should have been. (Mind you, Black-Jacks & Fruit Salad were 8 for 1d  - 2 for a Farthing (many years later they went to 4 for 1d)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, buccaneer66 said:

Enough of this stupid argument you two.

 

The bit that puzzles me is why MJG as a banned poster has been allowed to re-register here and carry on with his low-level goading behaviour so well illustrated in this thread. 

 

Back in the day I proposed that banned posters should be allowed to re-register a new ID and the new ID allowed to carry on, provided it behaved itself. But a mod weighed in (or I think it might have been Dan himself) telling me the policy is that the persons themselves are banned, not their user IDs. So any new doppel ID would not be allowed either.

 

M_JG seems to have managed to breach this ruling while others have been refused the chance to come back. 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.