Matt - nothing so high-tech involved. My eyeballs bugged out when I received my DSC Directory last year - a list of all members complete with addresses sent to all other members! Handy little document if you are selling hunts. No, I don't recall signing any permission to release my information. My wife bought my membership as a gift, so I can't swear that she didn't check an opt out box.

I also receive scads of unsolicited emails and print advertisements from advertisers I have only seen in the SCI Safari magazine - leading me to think they may have purchased a member list.

I know companies routinely sell this kind of information (I have purposely misspelled my name on registration info in the past so I can "trace" where junk mail comes from) - but I think the practice is unethical unless someone specifically requests to be added to a mailing list.

Sorry to move this off-topic.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Acer:
Matt - nothing so high-tech involved. My eyeballs bugged out when I received my DSC Directory last year - a list of all members complete with addresses sent to all other members! Handy little document if you are selling hunts. No, I don't recall signing any permission to release my information. My wife bought my membership as a gift, so I can't swear that she didn't check an opt out box.

I also receive scads of unsolicited emails and print advertisements from advertisers I have only seen in the SCI Safari magazine - leading me to think they may have purchased a member list.

I know companies routinely sell this kind of information (I have purposely misspelled my name on registration info in the past so I can "trace" where junk mail comes from) - but I think the practice is unethical unless someone specifically requests to be added to a mailing list.

Sorry to move this off-topic.

Dave

Oh yeah - I forgot about that directory!

Maybe this is starting to touch on Blairs business. Something must be going on, I was getting an email every week or two. I swear I am getting them practically on a daily basis now. Seems like desperation for bookings must be kicking in

On a side note: I get daily emails from various hunting outfitters, guides and booking agents, almost all of which I have never met or heard of. The only plausible reason they could all have my email(S) is from SCI

quote:

Originally posted by Full Roar:
Maybe this is starting to touch on Blairs business. Something must be going on, I was getting an email every week or two. I swear I am getting them practically on a daily basis now. Seems like desperation for bookings must be kicking in

On a side note: I get daily emails from various hunting outfitters, guides and booking agents, almost all of which I have never met or heard of. The only plausible reason they could all have my email(S) is from SCI

From scanning by companies at the convention perhaps ... but I am 99% sure that SCI has never sold their email list, otherwise I myself would get all the emails myself and I do not.

It isnt hard to end-up on a mailing list but I am pretty sure that SCI as an organisation is not the culprit.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Full Roar:
Maybe this is starting to touch on Blairs business. Something must be going on, I was getting an email every week or two. I swear I am getting them practically on a daily basis now. Seems like desperation for bookings must be kicking in

On a side note: I get daily emails from various hunting outfitters, guides and booking agents, almost all of which I have never met or heard of. The only plausible reason they could all have my email(S) is from SCI

From scanning by companies at the convention perhaps ... but I am 99% sure that SCI has never sold their email list, otherwise I myself would get all the emails myself and I do not.

It isnt hard to end-up on a mailing list but I am pretty sure that SCI as an organisation is not the culprit.

I have been wrong before ---- once

It would not surprise me if the family wants to put this behind them.

It would appear so. Still no word from the family .

Tomorrow will be a week since I sent the e mail. I have to assume they are not interested.

If they want to put such a big loss behind them and are consequently not answering emails, I'd guess there's either no contract at all or there's a contract that allows for such cancellation etc.

I can certainly sympathise with their loss but also feel that they need to accept their mistakes in entering into such a deal without sufficient protection and perhaps their failure to reply would suggest they do exactly that.

How's that for a diplomatic way of putting things!

I wonder if Drummond has heard anything?

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Tomorrow will be a week since I sent the e mail. I have to assume they are not interested.

Maybe they are off on another hunt booked through BWW. Give it a little more time.

This is from memory which isn't as good as it once was, but I thought that it was long ago established that the family had signed a Blair contract which basically excused Blair from everything but outright theft and that was why they didn't take it any further. I and many others believe that a good lawyer could have shredded that contract based on what happened and due diligence obligations etc. However, the costs would likely have been higher than the recovery.

NONE of the above excuses Blair WW in any way in my opinion. Legal is one thing, being a moral whore is something else. He should have returned his commission, at least, and helped pursue Heathington, the stealing SOB.

Your memory is true, Gatogordo.

For Blair, there is no justice, only avarice.

What is strictly legal, or subject to legal vindication, is not necessarily the same as what is just.

Regardless of the contract terms, what Blair did was repugnant.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:

What is strictly legal, or subject to legal vindication, is not necessarily the same as what is just.

Regardless of the contract terms, what Blair did was repugnant.

I agree completely but as the family appear not to want to pursue the matter because they (presumably) believe they'd lose any claim that was made, the fuss being made here, the idea of AR membars taking some kind of action to rectify the situation and the needless and unwarranted bad publicity for the honest outfitters stirred up in the other thread is totally pointless.

quote:

the needless and unwarranted bad publicity for the honest outfitters stirred up in the other thread is totally pointless.

Absolutely wrong for the same reasons I expressed in the other thread. Those of us who find Blair's actions to be abhorrent want him out of business. That means reducing his income to below survival level which includes putting pressure on HONEST outfitters not to do business with him. If those honest outfitters don't want their name associated with a liar and a thief then they should not do business with a liar and a thief. Apparently Mr. Pieters can see this clearly, why can't you?

Quite simply it's because their business alone who they do deal with. To me, it's perfectly acceptable for someone to contact them privately and tell them the guy they're doing business with is a crook and if they have any sense, they'll investigate and heed that advice if it's valid.

But as I see it, it's totally unacceptable to name them in public in such a way as we've seen here. All you have to do is read the posts to see that naming them in the way they were could well have (and almost certainly has) cost them business through no fault of their own and believe me, such safari companies can't afford such unfair and unwarranted bad publicity.

and let's face it, for all we KNOW (as opposed to what we believe) bearing in mind how the family have failed to respond, there's always the chance (perhaps albeit a remote chance) that things might not have been exactly as they were presented.

There's always at least two sides to every story and often more than that.

I'm certainly not trying to defend BWW but do feel there might possibly be more to the story than has been revealed here and with that in mind, reckon it's bang out of order to attack decent, honest outfitters without our even knowing the whole story.

But internet trials are rarely fair are they?

quote:

Quite simply it's because their business alone who they do deal with. To me, it's perfectly acceptable for someone to contact them privately and tell them the guy they're doing business with is a crook and if they have any sense, they'll investigate and heed that advice if it's valid.

But as I see it, it's totally unacceptable to name them in public in such a way as we've seen here.

And quite simply it is the hunter's choice to make an informed decision whether to patronize those outfitters who support Blair WW by allowing them to represent them. Don't like being trashed, don't allow your name to be used by trash.

Contrary to your view, many hunters who might choose to spend their hunting dollars with other people who don't allow their names to be associated with trash WOULD NOT KNOW about this issue because they obviously don't spend anytime viewing Blair's web site. You might not like it, the outfitter's involved might not like it, but those of us who think Blair should no longer be in business think it is a service to our fellow hunters and they can make their INFORMED decisions as they see fit.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree because I believe the issue of the outfitters should have been dealt with privately because doing it publicly & without prior warning could in a worst case scenario, easily result in putting good, honest & decent people out of business.

"The sky is falling....." NOT.

And, what's more, IF, given adequate time to correct the situation, then any outfitters who choose to continue their association with Blair can and should lose business, and hopefully lots of it, due to their poor choices.

I'll sign!

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
"The sky is falling....." NOT.

And, what's more, IF, given adequate time to correct the situation, then any outfitters who choose to continue their association with Blair can and should lose business, and hopefully lots of it, due to their poor choices.

Good to know you consider yourself qualified to be judge, jury and executioner of agent, client and all the outfitters involved without even knowing the whole story as none of us apparently do...... From what I can gather, no-one even knows if there was a contract or not, let alone what it did or didn't say.

You don't gather very well. Are you always such a drama queen? "Judge, jury, and executioner", what a laugh.

Good to know that you prefer back door dealings without letting controversies out into the light of day because they MIGHT hurt a guilty party.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
You don't gather very well.

Good to know that you prefer back door dealings without letting controversies out into the light of day because they MIGHT hurt a guilty party.

More likely to hurt innocent parties as has happened here...... but if you're so sure of your facts, I'll look forward to seeing your post that publishes the missing contract that proves the guilt of the accused and shows proof of legal proceedings being taken against BWW.

Without a contract and further proof that said contract was breached then as appalling as the behaviour seems (from what we know) then nothing can be done.

Therefore the guilty walk away and the innocent outfitters have had their businesses damaged for no reason.

As for back door dealings........ I don't approve of dodgy dealings and have never taken part in them but sometimes, especially in Africa, a gentle & friendly back door approach will often achieve a whole lot more than all the shouting, screaming & foot stamping in the world.

In case you haven't noticed, the US hunters and Blair are not in Africa.

I'm going to say this one more time, IMO and in the opinion of many others in here, ANY outfitter who is familiar with the Blair-Heathington sheep hunt story AND CONTINUES to do business with Blair WW after sufficient time to disentangle any current clients or commissions IS NOT INNOCENT.

THAT is not business damaged for "no reason" but HOPEFULLY business being damaged by a conscious choice, both on the part of the outfitter to continue to associate with Blair, and by the hunters who CHOOSE not to use them.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gatogordo:
In case you haven't noticed, the US hunters and Blair are not in Africa. True but the outfitters are and a gentle back door approach would probably have achieved a lot more than the approach that was used.

I'm going to say this one more time, IMO and in the opinion of many others in here, ANY outfitter who is familiar with the Blair-Heathington sheep hunt story AND CONTINUES to do business with Blair WW after sufficient time to disentangle any current clients or commissions IS NOT INNOCENT. Firstly they may not have known and secondly, no-one appears to know the truth of what happened because the contract seems to be conspicuous by it's absence and the family don't appear to be saying squat. That indicates to me at least that there may be more to the story than we know

/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gatogordo:
In case you haven't noticed, the US hunters and Blair are not in Africa. True but the outfitters are and a gentle back door approach would probably have achieved a lot more than the approach that was used.

I'm going to say this one more time, IMO and in the opinion of many others in here, ANY outfitter who is familiar with the Blair-Heathington sheep hunt story AND CONTINUES to do business with Blair WW after sufficient time to disentangle any current clients or commissions IS NOT INNOCENT. Firstly they may not have known and secondly, no-one appears to know the truth of what happened because the contract seems to be conspicuous by it's absence and the family don't appear to be saying squat. That indicates to me at least that there may be more to the story than we know

/QUOTE]

Ther you go again Steve. You are letting the facts or lack there of interfere with a good argument.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

Ther you go again Steve. You are letting the facts or lack there of interfere with a good argument.

Jeff

As you say, why after all let facts interfere with opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

I'm going to say this one more time, IMO and in the opinion of many others in here, ANY outfitter who is familiar with the Blair-Heathington sheep hunt story AND CONTINUES to do business with Blair WW after sufficient time to disentangle any current clients or commissions IS NOT INNOCENT. Firstly they may not have known and secondly, no-one appears to know the truth of what happened because the contract seems to be conspicuous by it's absence and the family don't appear to be saying squat. That indicates to me at least that there may be more to the story than we know

I talked with a family member recently and he literally threw everything out about 6 weeks ago pertaining to this theft. I can understand and appreciate the family wanting to put this behind them.

Blair obviously had a contract but what some fail to realize is just because something might be "legal" doesn't make it right. What Jeff Blair did is morally reprehensible and I fell very strongly that people should know what kind of person he is.

To try and claim that Blair was in the right because he had a contract completely disgusts me

If what has been said is true then I agree it is indeed morally reprehensible but if the family care so little about it they firstly fail to take action for 2 years or however long it'd been & then throw all the paperwork away I'd suspect the issue probably isn't as clear cut as has been suggested.

Their actions & lack of actions also might perhaps suggest the bad publicity given to the previously named honest outfitters was unwarranted & unfair & I have no doubt cost them money for no good reason.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
If what has been said is true then I agree it is indeed morally reprehensible but if the family care so little about it they firstly fail to take action for 2 years or however long it'd been & then throw all the paperwork away I'd suspect the issue probably isn't as clear cut as has been suggested.

Their actions & lack of actions also might perhaps suggest the bad publicity given to the previously named honest outfitters was unwarranted & unfair & I have no doubt cost them money for no good reason.

Blair issued a response here on AR. Have you even read that thread? Jeff Blair doesn't deny what the family has said, instead he tries to justify his actions.

Just to make it clear, my stance towards Jeff Blair isn't based on speculation, it's based on his pathetic response on that thread. Jeff Blair's own words will show you what a disgrace he is to this sport and this industry.

By the time Shakari gets through with his drama,
Blair will be a hero.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
If what has been said is true then I agree it is indeed morally reprehensible but if the family care so little about it they firstly fail to take action for 2 years or however long it'd been & then throw all the paperwork away I'd suspect the issue probably isn't as clear cut as has been suggested.

Their actions & lack of actions also might perhaps suggest the bad publicity given to the previously named honest outfitters was unwarranted & unfair & I have no doubt cost them money for no good reason.

You may be right.

They were the wrong people to fight a battle like this. They let bull shit blustering scare them.

Drummond

I might have read it but don't remember it I'm afraid but at the end of the day, the question is what did the contract say?

If there's cause for legal action then the family should have taken it (they had plenty of time to do so) and if not, there's no point in pursuing the matter & even less point in naming good men in the hope of shaming them on a public forum for no valid reason. Such action in such circumstances is (IMO) no better than lowering oneself to Blair's level.

If Blair is the dirtbag he's claimed to be, I'll be happy to see him lynched but only after due process. However, I reckon it was bang out of order to treat the innocent bystanders the way they were.

As I've said before, they should have been approached privately & made aware of the situation & left to make up their own minds & I have very little doubt they'd have dropped BWW like a ton of bricks.

quote:

If Blair is the dirtbag he's claimed to be, I'll be happy to see him lynched but only after due process. However, I reckon it was bang out of order to treat the innocent bystanders the way they were.

Still wrong. And I'm going to add all the "innocent bystanders" to my tag line as Blair supporters after a reasonable period of time has passed.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
I'm going to add all the "innocent bystanders" to my tag line as Blair supporters after a reasonable period of time has passed.

A prime example of how the unwarranted & unfair publicity has damaged the reputations & businesses of innocent outfitters.

I rest my case M'lord.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Drummond

I might have read it but don't remember it I'm afraid but at the end of the day, the question is what did the contract say?

You "don't remember" the other thread yet feel qualified to defend Jeff Blair?

With all due respect maybe you should read this..
http://forums.accuratereloadin...043/m/3471078051/p/1

...and then come back and talk about how we are wronging Jeff Blair.

If you pay attention you'll see a timeline of importance but I dont want to spoil it for you. Enjoy...

And before you come back with the "yeah, but the contract...." Screw the contract Steve. Morality doesn't need a contract. Throw legalities out the window, Jeff Blair is morally bankrupt

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
I'm going to add all the "innocent bystanders" to my tag line as Blair supporters after a reasonable period of time has passed.

A prime example of how the unwarranted & unfair publicity has damaged the reputations & businesses of innocent outfitters.

I rest my case M'lord.

What a twit! I guess the quotation marks around "innocent" went right over your head. Geesh.

Drummond

I'm not defending Blair at all. I'm defending the innocent outfitters YOU named in the hope of blackmailing them into doing as you wanted them to do.

I haven't once said that Blair is innocent but have repeatedly said that YOU were wrong to name the outfitters & try to drag them into supporting your agenda AND that I suspect there may be a lot more to the issue because the family have failed to take legal action for 2 years or however long it is and that it's odd that they, you or anyone else has managed to lay hands on the contract.

If I booked a US$70K hunt, I'd be bloody sure to have a cast iron contract before I parted with a penny and if I then got screwed, I'd be taking legal action within hours, let alone days, weeks, months or years to recover my money.

I sure as hell wouldn't just forget it and throw the contract away and such behaviour suggests to me at least that there's a whole lot more to the story than you claim.

I'm not suggesting you're a liar just that there might possibly be more to the story than you know and that you were bloody wrong to try to drag innocent parties into your quest.

As for moralities, if you check back to the bushwhack thread, you'll see I was one of the first to say we would have and have in the past, refunded 100% in such a case no matter what the contract said but my point is, we don't know what the contract said in this case.

By all means lynch BWW but don't try to put good men out of business for no good reason.

Drummond,

I just checked the link you provided and if you think I'm going to read 23 pages then you've got another think coming but I see that the OP was involved in the transaction so perhaps you can arrange for him to come and comment on why he failed to take legal action for 2 years or however long it is and why he or another member of the family simply threw a contract away that might have recovered his US$70K or whatever it was?