Seeking permission to post e-mail exchange

1,000/1 we’ll never see those emails, if Nathan has any control of it. Any takers?

My bet is that Thornberry wants to produce his own “edited” version of the email correspondence that will omit the evidence that condemns him as opposed to Joe’s request to publish them in their entirety.

The only other reason that he would balk at having his months long demand to publish these emails complied with would be that he never expected Joe to say “yes”.

Either way, by having Joe publish them … he loses. In this regard, I think you are correct.

Jim do you really think Nathan would really purposely misrepresent all the members here? I really thought he was a man of his word.

Jim

Do you think a pledge that prohibits inspectors from selling their client’s personal information misrepresents itself? Let me check. Oh, although it prohibits SELLING consumer information, it permits GIVING it away. LOL. Yeah, that’s a misrepresentation alright. :roll:

Good grief Nick.

Where do you come up with this stuff.

The pledge is so clear in its intent that even a caveman would get it.

Then … we have the Gromicko/Thornberry amendment to the COE … where a home inspector is “ethically” permitted to sell AND give away his client’s private information to contractors and lead brokers. There are certain restrictions, though. He must whisper from the roof (as the client sits in the car with the radio on) who he is providing the information to. Then, he is allowed to sell it and conceal from the client all of the kickbacks he receives from the various contractors who pay him for the information.

An amendment so corrupt that the Chairman of the ESOP Committee disavows any expressed or implied approval of it by him or by the ESOP Committee.

Illegal in many states … but “ethical” by NACHI standards. :wink:

Yep, it clearly doesn’t prohibit giving private consumer info to your brother-in-law the roofing contractor (you just can’t sell it to him). Some pledge ya got there. Who wrote that thing?

I was thinking more like: LOL :smiley:

Nick attempts to “legislate” things away, yet in his own explanation of the COE provisions, he admits that not every circumstance can be covered by any single provision.

The purpose of the COE is to prohibit the selling of client data. At first we thought about prohibiting the transfer of any client data, but quickly realized that that provision would not lend itself to how most inspectors operate when providing ancillary services and sub-contracted services.

When examining emerging trends in our industry, it is important to note the role that client data could play from a financial standpoint, as well as the reality that every electronic report that is stored on a server not owned by you, could violate a restriction on the transfer of client data.

When examining the value of leads borne from clint information, and the harvesting methodology being used and the role of the inspector, that is where the CFP could make a difference, and does.

But, getting back on track with regard to me seeking permission from Nathan to post our e-mail exchange, Nick has repeatedly failed to acknowledge that I did provide Nathan with details on the first 3 complaints against him, and the purpose of the exchange (as repeated by me) was to provide the opportunity for Nathan to defend himself.

Based on these FACTS, the entire premise Nick has peddled as to why he refused to implement ESOP recommendations is totally false.

When Nick stated he righted a wrong, he actually wronged a right.

Now he attempts to derail this thread, which would expose the truth.

I expected more.

Nick’s house and Nick’s rules! You don’t like it then go join some other org! It’s that simple…

Castle Rule.

Who are you trying to Bait with your nonsense? sorry won’t work we got your game, and it is very weak, and oh so transparent…LOL

Not even relevant to this thread. Sorry your weak attempt at another diversion failed like all the rest. The only thing you accomplish by these spins in more loss of your credibility.

If you have an issue with the pledge start a thread on it, but your hilarious diversionary attempts are not working.

Nice try , but another FAIL !

Jim

Delete the whole darn pledge and be done with it.

Once again Nick’s house…Nick’s rules. Dude your BP is getting to you…have you considered leaving inachi and joining another org where you would be happy?

Have you always Been a sheep? Baaaaa Baaaaaa

Do you also sell your clients information to anyone?

Jim

To get back on topic,

Did Nathan really wimp out about posting the emails?

Jim

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Absolutely. He’s crooked, but he’s not stupid, IMO. He knows what they will reveal.

You should have taken me up on my offer in the diner.

Now… about providing permission to post our e-mail exchange… how about it?

What are you afraid of? Being exposed for perpetuating the falsehoods you have spewed from the onset?

Will you post the e-mails, or do I have your express permission to publish them? Either is fine.

Do you grant the waiver from the threat you levied or not?

Or is this just more blather from the King?

You can certainly shuck and jive… but only for so long before folks catch on.

Like your anecdote about cosmetology.

This will certainly help shed light on some of your philosophies.

Come on. Let’s post.

Look at the title of this thread. Stay focused, please.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

I am hopeful for a “yes”, but I expect spinning and ultimately a resounding “no”.

Nathan gives permission to post complaints and emails regarding his COE violations in members only post #254 April 16

Nathan denies knowing about his COE violations and complaints and granting permission to post materials on April 17th post 103

Nathan gives permission to post materials regarding ESOP deliberations as to his COE violations. post 273 on May 16th

Again in post 277