Where's Glen Hancock (Therealkingcobra)?!?

336Robin

Multiverse Operative
Gold Member
Silver Member
You have yet to answer. I will ask yet again. If Mary contracted Sally to repair something for her, and there was an agreed upon time frame, and Sally failed to meet the time frame and it was through no fault of Mary's, would you agree in principle that Mary at that point has every right to ask for her property back and a refund for whatever reason she chooses? Yes or no?

The question doesn't apply to the situation is the problem therefore its useless. I answered it the way the situation is not this false situation
 

336Robin

Multiverse Operative
Gold Member
Silver Member
Robin,

It's a beautiful early fall day. Why don't you take the wife and the kids out for a picnic in the country?

No mask, no stress, no anxiety, just some good, old fashioned family bonding time.

Fixing lunch now will mow and take my walk later but thanks!:smile:
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Robin,

It's a beautiful early fall day. Why don't you take the wife and the kids out for a picnic in the country?

No mask, no stress, no anxiety, just some good, old fashioned family bonding time.
And maybe a nice large Thorazine smoothie.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
For the non comprehending mark.

You guys were a great mark by the way.
You don't even know what happened. WHO is delusional here?? Again: IF there was a time constraint on the contract, would the OP have the right to his funds and go elsewhere?? That's EXACTLY the scenario. Fairly obvious that you, like the rest of us, have NO clue what actually happened yet you take one side and say all the rest of us have been conned. Wow.
 

poolhustler

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
ROBIN: "I know exactly what happened"

Also ROBIN: "I don't know shit"

There are only two people who know what happened exactly. And Robin Hood ain't one of them. But he sure thinks he does......
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
The question doesn't apply to the situation is the problem therefore its useless. I answered it the way the situation is not this false situation

We can't 100% for sure say yet that it does not apply to the situation, which is exactly why you don't want to answer.

This is the same way you are in NPR and in every other thread really, where your goal is never, ever, to find truth. Your sole goal is always--ALWAYS-- to find the side you most like and the one that you would like to see being right, and then to defend that side and do your best to the end to make sure that it is not allowed to suffer any negative consequences in any way regardless of what the facts may be, regardless of what they may have done wrong, and regardless of how wrong they may be.

Because of that sole goal you aren't willing to answer a question that would pin you down in such a way that it would remove your ability to try to find a way to spin things and continue to defend that person or position if it turned out to be a certain way.

I will ask again anyway though. If Mary contracted Sally to repair something for her, and there was an agreed upon time frame, and Sally failed to meet the time frame and it was through no fault of Mary's, would you agree in principle that Mary at that point has every right to ask for her property back and a refund for whatever reason she chooses? Yes or no?
 

336Robin

Multiverse Operative
Gold Member
Silver Member
You do this same thing in NPR. You ask questions you already know the answer you want. You don't ask the questions that solve the problem. Hence I
answered you in my way but you have no interest in getting closer to the truth. Stop asking this question that doesn't apply to the situation. I won't waste my time verifying
what you want me to when it's not the situation with its details that will supply a truthful answer.

The other answer to this would be to ask the OP what Glen did, when he did it and provide text messages of said breakage of contract along with the contract.

If all that comes to light and I'm wrong I'll apologize.

I think it's fair that the OP do the same if he is wrong. I'm sure everyone will forgive him.



We can't 100% for sure say yet that it does not apply to the situation, which is exactly why you don't want to answer.

This is the same way you are in NPR and in every other thread really, where your goal is never, ever, to find truth. Your sole goal is always--ALWAYS-- to find the side you most like and the one that you would like to see being right, and then to defend that side and do your best to the end to make sure that it is not allowed to suffer any negative consequences in any way regardless of what the facts may be, regardless of what they may have done wrong, and regardless of how wrong they may be.

Because of that sole goal you aren't willing to answer a question that would pin you down in such a way that it would remove your ability to try to find a way to spin things and continue to defend that person or position if it turned out to be a certain way.

I will ask again anyway though. If Mary contracted Sally to repair something for her, and there was an agreed upon time frame, and Sally failed to meet the time frame and it was through no fault of Mary's, would you agree in principle that Mary at that point has every right to ask for her property back and a refund for whatever reason she chooses? Yes or no?
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
Glen

Robin,

Many of Glen's past actions aren't hearsay as he acknowledged the basic facts himself. Any gold member willing to waste the time will find over a decade of Glen's abuses of customers. Even those that rave about his work know that he is very unlikely to respect promises.

I have to think you know this as well as anyone so your defenses smack of horse manure and just taking the contrarian point of view for your own amusement.

Hu


You're right there is much you don't know, but yet you spread much more you also don't specify as facts about Glen and this is my point.

This place has become judge and jury based on opinions. If you guys are happy with it then. So mote it be.

I'll bet we've seen the last of the OP, will never see the contract and never get an explanation of who broke it because people just hate Glen and don't care what some stranger is allowed to do to his reputation.

Doesn't all this make you want to join Az or contribute?

The guy is an unknown trusted and made whole by some very kind people here that I hope are satisfied with their investment.
 

Snooker Theory

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Robin,

Many of Glen's past actions aren't hearsay as he acknowledged the basic facts himself. Any gold member willing to waste the time will find over a decade of Glen's abuses of customers. Even those that rave about his work know that he is very unlikely to respect promises.

I have to think you know this as well as anyone so your defenses smack of horse manure and just taking the contrarian point of view for your own amusement.

Hu

There are countless AZ OG's that posted in this very thread sharing a similar experience with Glen as what OP described, lol
 

336Robin

Multiverse Operative
Gold Member
Silver Member
Robin,

Many of Glen's past actions aren't hearsay as he acknowledged the basic facts himself. Any gold member willing to waste the time will find over a decade of Glen's abuses of customers. Even those that rave about his work know that he is very unlikely to respect promises.

I have to think you know this as well as anyone so your defenses smack of horse manure and just taking the contrarian point of view for your own amusement.

Hu

Hu,

From the very beginning at op's 3rd post I've been completely horrified how the herd mentality here went on the attack without anymore "than a guy that we don't know's word."

I am not amused at all but when this thread came up yet again I couldn't stand it any longer because there's no proof Glen did what this guy said he did. The fact that no one wanted proof is beyond me.

I could really care less about him getting rails, money for rails etc. Not an issue with me. Send him some cash, buy him a car. I don't care.

People to attack for amusement. Who's next?

I find it hard to believe that when this sort of thing happens here all you need is an accusation no proof whatsoever.
 

Snooker Theory

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hu,

From the very beginning at op's 3rd post I've been completely horrified how the herd mentality here went on the attack without anymore "than a guy that we don't know's word."

I am not amused at all but when this thread came up yet again I couldn't stand it any longer because there's no proof Glen did what this guy said he did. The fact that no one wanted proof is beyond me.

I could really care less about him getting rails, money for rails etc. Not an issue with me. Send him some cash, buy him a car. I don't care.

People to attack for amusement. Who's next?

I find it hard to believe that when this sort of thing happens here all you need is an accusation no proof whatsoever.

Yet you have provided zero proof either, and you also never saw the contract right??

From your post which was a bit vague, sounded like Glen told you the OP has the one and only contract, ooooof, ok... REALLY?

The fact that one of the argumentative people I have encountered on this forum, who would literally argue and call anyone out, wouldn't respond, paired with all the other stories in this thread says all I need to know.

You are faulting people for judging Glen without evidence, but his lack of a response speaks volumes. You have also provided ZERO evidence,


POST THE CONTRACT ROBIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Top