I sent it to your email last week, I'll send it again
Printable View
I sent it to your email last week, I'll send it again
I sent it to your email last week, sent again at 9.30 this morning
Special thanks as I did not receive the previous message.
When enlarged on my Mac. the photo you have kindly sent, shows a registration plate Q9169, as against my car GR7169. I do not see it as being the car I owned.
After purchasing the car, I talked to someone in the Auckland Lotus Club, who knew something of its previous club racing history, which as I understood it only involved North Island circuits. There was no suggestion of it ever having been fitted with wire wheels, with the main topic of the conversation covering a period of rather harsh treatment.
Whatever, thanks for your efforts to assist.
Trevor.
Trevor. The picture I sent has GR7169 sitting next tp GR7171.
Gr7169 reregistered as NR8468 and now FLP100 The car is now white and living in Christchurch which I think it always has done?
The Chassis Numbers are listed in the CAMS Log Books for the two "wide body" (Australian version) cars that we have. The 3995 was logged in 1978 but the 3060 was logged in 1980. Both cars have documented ASCC history, the question we have is are they Steel Bros cars or Norwich cars?
Any hints as to where chassis numbers or ID can be found on the cars?
CCC
Chassis 3060 if a Steel bros. car would have been built in '76 and sorry 3995 doesn't seem to fit, is this the black car with yellow strip for sale at the moment?. Only NZ built cars seem to come with a wide body.
Hi Paul, and congratulations with Your S4. As it happends I just bought one myself here on the other side of the world :) It is just a normal S4, but I will somehow modify it along the way. I have to questions for you: is the track with up front the same as an S4 or is it wider? Secondly, do you have and pics of the rear setup?
If you are interested to see my car, I have started a thread on Pistonheads:
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t...4092011265.jpg
Hello down under,
I found this thread the other day and have read it with great interest. I have done a lot of research on the Lotus 7 and the Lotus approved Seven derivatives. I take pride in getting the history as accurate as possible, because I believe that there are enough inaccurate books on the Seven already. I have during the past 20 years personally talked to many former Lotus employees involved in the Seven. Unfortunately there is only one remaining former Lotus executive left who I finally got to talk the other day. I am a Lotus owner myself. I have done some research on the "company X 7", but after reading this tread I believe that my research is far from over:) I am only interested in the Sevens manufactured by "Company X", not the Seven kits they imported from England. Here is what I am told so far:
“Company X" build Lotus 7 S4 in a "country close to Australia". Caterham and/or Lotus send a frame jig and a body mold to them. These Sevens were build from approx. 1973 to 1976 on a 3 year licenses issued by Caterham. They made 97 cars - 50 with the Lotus twin cam engine & 47 with the Lotus 907 engine. They used the Lotus name on their cars but that was never approved by Lotus. They even tried to get the 907 EPA/DOT approved for export to the US but that never happened.”
Please feel free to correct the above.
*It has been told that it was Lotus who licensed "Company X", but according to reliable source that is probably incorrect because Lotus reached a binding agreement with Caterham in July 1971. In that agreement Caterham took over the production rights of ALL Lotus 7 types and committed themselves to support existing Lotus Sevens. The agreement was however first finalized in May 1973.
*Does anybody have the VIN numbers for the "company X 7"? I have some.
*Is the 907 engine "company X 7" all widebody Super 907?
*Was the Super 907 ever approved for road use?
*Paul (Wilkinson) the VIN (chassis) no. 3094 you display – Is that the VIN for your widebody Seven?
I am looking forward to be hearing from you all.
Mike
Hi Paul,
Colin Chapman could be a devious so and so but I don’t believe that he would do anything in this case that could jeopardize the deal with Caterham. He absolutely wanted to get rid of the Seven and as fast as possible.
Colin Chapman had to protect the Lotus name for legal reasons (I have the full story about that) and therefore nobody (to my knowledge) have never been permitted to use the Lotus name on cars or kits not produced by Lotus England. Not even Caterham and they tried hard to keep the Lotus name on the Seven.
What I am told is that with the exception of Lotus & Caterham, 3 other manufactures have been allowed to manufacture the Seven under license. "Company X" was one of them.
So the displayed chassis number is for the red one you displayed (engine compartment)? What’s the chassis number on your “black monster”?
Where can I find a list of the "Company X 7" chassis numbers on this board as you wrote?
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Paul,
The 50 S4 kits (some say a lot more) were delivered to "Company X" from Lotus before "Company X" started their own Seven production. These cars are genuine Lotus Sevens. The Sevens produced by "Company X" from 1973 – 1976 ? were Sevens using the original Lotus jig and molds.
There are made approx. 2400 genuine Lotus Seven (all models) and out of them around 5000 have survived :) That’s the severity of the Seven forgeries. However I am not the person to judge what you call a Lotus not produced by Lotus. Graham Nearn called them Caterham.
Anyway I am very interested in more info. on the "Company X 7" regarding chassis numbers, production numbers, photos Etc.
Cheers,
Mike
Kia ora Mike,
With due respect, New Zealand does not harbour or condone fraud and corruption of any sort is exceedingly rare. Our laws support international branding and laws relative to copyright. Steele Bros (NZ) Ltd constitutes a well known legitimate substantial enterprise engaged in the heavy transport sector and as such would not have contemplated risking their substantial good will by illegally using the Lotus name.
Exactly from where are you compiling your alleged expert information? You may be 52 and be pretty sure, but I am 83 and well remember the advertising and sales promotion relative to the local building of the Lotus S4. At the time severe import restrictions were in place and only locally assembled cars were readily available. The possibility of local manufacture was very much in the news and Steele Bros activity was widely publicised. There were reports on how arrangements were made after personal visits to the Lotus organisation.
You are stating that Steel Bros were operating illegally. Provide proof or desist from distributing slander, you could be judged liable.
I drove a Lotus S4 constructed locally and it certainly was not imitation or bogus.
Cheers,
Trevor.
Hi Trevor,
I initially wrote to this thread in order find out more about the "Company X 7" (not the S4 kits imported from Lotus) and not to start a “war” on whether Lotus had aproved the use of their badge on it or not. I am absolutely not accusing anybody of anything but if you are so sure that Lotus had approved in writing that "other Seven manufactures" could use the Lotus badge on the cars they build entirely, then give me some proof instead of threatening me with liability issues. Put your word where your mouth is my friend, and if you are right and I am wrong – I will eat my words and write here that I was wrong.
Again I am interested in the "Company X"produced Sevens history and not in “mudslinging” as mentioned above.
If that’s not possible I am sorry that I spend my time writing to this thread and we might as well stop here. My spare time is too valuable for non constructive conversations.
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Paul & Trevor,
I fully agree with you Paul that I can be percived as a bit arrogant even though I am not. I am a no nonsense guy who absolutely hates politics and injustice. What I have to say, I say directly to people.
I have really researched the Lotus 7 and 7 licensed derivatives very thoroughly during many years. I have talked to almost all the Colin Chapman Lotus era top people involved with the Seven and sadly there are now only one left. I have spoken to key Lotus people no other authors of any Seven books have spoken to! Without sounding arrogant I don’t believe that anybody has researched as much as I have regarding the Lotus 7. Therefore it really pisses me off when somebody like you Trevor accuses me of: “Stating that "Company X" were operating illegally, distributing slander, so I could be judged liable” Etc. That very OTT and not called fore.
The following has been said by many of the ex. top Lotus people I have interviewed:
“When Caterham took over the Seven production they wanted very much to use the Lotus Name. Colin Chapman checked that possibility with his attorneys. However the problem was that Lotus could still be held liable for independent manufactures possible legal problems if they used the Lotus name on their cars and registrations. So that was declined.”
Knowing that it is not very likely that "other Seven manufactures" were given that permission – is it?
That does not make the "Company X 7" an inferior product and that is NOT what I am saying. In a matter of fact the car was probably better than the original Lotus 7 S4, especially the “wide body”. I wouldn’t mind having a Super 907 myself and that was the reason why I previously asked if that car was approved for road use. I know that you all are proud of the "Company X 7" and rightfully may I say and it has never been my intention to challenge that.
If there still are some key "Company X 7"people around, please give them my e-mail: agmni@aol.com. I would like to get their storeys.
Cheers,
Mike
Attention Mike,
You made this direct statement --- “They (Steel Bros.) used the Lotus name on their cars but that was never approved by Lotus.” What is more you included significant associated asides, all of which damages the goodwill of Steele Bros.
It is especially significant that you continue not to provide the factual evidence which I requested, i.e. “You are stating that Steel Bros. were operating illegally. Provide proof or desist from distributing slander, you could be judged liable.”
You have rudely posted, ----
” if you (Trevor) are so sure that Lotus had approved in writing that Steel Brothers could use the Lotus badge on the cars they build entirely, then give me some proof instead of threatening me with liability issues. Put your word where your mouth is my friend, and if you are right and I am wrong – I will eat my words and write here that I was wrong. I am waiting.”
I now “put my word where my mouth is” and again categorically state, what I have outlined is sound and logical fact. N.B. Steele Bros. would not have blatantly publicised a product, branded it and widely used the name “Lotus”, unless they were legally entitled to do so. This would have amounted to outright commercial stupidity, leaving the door open for litigation and costly damages.. I trust the intelligence of readers to carefully read your posts together with statements by Paul and myself and come to logical conclusions.
You now obtusely if not slyly, address me within your latest post --- “So this is not a matter of somebody has done something illegally Trevor, but again that is not the same as they were given a written permission to use the Lotus name is it?”
In answer I say, stop beating about the bush dodging the issue. You have here in print, made absolute and direct unproved derogatory statements relative to Steele Bros. What is more, you now claim authority in respect of making your allegations by stating, “Without sounding arrogant I don’t believe that anybody has researched as much as I have regarding the Lotus 7.”
At this point I restrain from more aptly worded comment. However I do call for an apology, particularly towards Steels Bros. and without attendant qualification and or sarcasm.
Without repent,
Trevor.
P.S. It is rather significant that I am called upon to defend myself against text from a dot in cyberspace, whereas by contrast I post in my true name, which appears with my address in the Auckland telephone directory, available on the internet.
Hi Trevor,
Why do you keep attacking Mike and create a bad environment here with all your threats about legal actions??
This is a CAR forum for exchanging information and should not be used as your personal platform for vendetta or boredom.
Apparently I have to choose my words carefully here or you will probably also threaten to sue me too.
Here is a Section from CAMS:
”Note: Only Lotus built cars or Lotus kits assembled by Steel Bros (NZ) are elgible for classification in this group. Later cars built by Steel Bros commonly known as “New Zealand 7” with altered mechnical and body specifications, are not elgible. Please refer to notes in addendum to this sheet.”
Question: Why are these Steel Bros Sevens not eligible if they are Lotuses as you claim?
Let’s close this discussion and move on.
Cheers,
John
Just a wee question for you from the sidelines.
When did CAMS, who has nothing whatever to do with NZ have the power to make a decision affecting NZ?
From the sidelines, it is not Trevor who has made the threats, it was Mike/Cossie who intimated that Steels had been acting illegally.
All Trevor (who I do not know) pointedout was that making these intimations could be libellous.
Jan, did you join the forum just to jump on this issue?
At the time of Steele Bros production we had numerous visits from Lotus staff, if the cars were illegal from a name point they could hardly have been unaware.
I have a vague memory of cars being displayed with race cars, but this could be a vague old memory and be incorrect
Hi all,
It’s getting late and I do not really want to get into this but I do see a pattern of a “lynching mob” from NZ and that is not right.
I am sorry but I do not see any threats from Mike. However I can associate with his frustration in trying to gather a historically correct Lotus 7 history and not getting any help.
I am aware of that CAMS has nothing to do with NZ! so what you are saying is that Steel Bros Sevens were only allowed to be called Lotuses in NZ. Is that correct understood? You are also saying that Australian CAMS (our national body) know absolutely nothing about the Steel Bros Seven! Isn’t that what Trevor calls slander?
As indicated I could care less here and I do not know Mike but after reading this thread again, I actually believe that it is Trevor who are threatening Mike.
Anyway I believe that Trevor has taken this thread way off topic and that we should get back on topic.
No this I by far my first contribution (if you must know!) but instead of changing my old profile which contains all my personal details such as e-mail address I have made a new one. I do not want persons like Trevor to have my e-mail address (for obvious reasons may I say).
Cheers,
John
FWIW Steel Bros had been in the fabrication business for almost 100 years, before the Lotus venture. The quality of their fabrication(s) and their honesty in their dealings was, and is, unquestioned.
This was very far from a 'nickle and dime' outfit, trying to assemble kit cars in a back shed.
Steel Bros, was then and is to this day, a large, well respected business
I'm sure the Lotus venture was a minor diversion, possibly to keep employees occupied during inevitable 'slow times' that were endemic in those industries, at that time.
Also FWIW, they were probably far better capitalized than any other of Chapman's customers, possibly better than Lotus themselves and, in my direct experience, Steel Bros paid their bills...on time...a characteristic attractive to ANY supplier of theirs, including Lotus.
Neville Milne
As a relative newbie here, I have been reading this thread with interest. I got the impression that any warnings were given in a friendly/advisory manner not as a threat of action to be taken by anyone here on the forum. Over the years I have read many books and articles about the S4 Sevens and all too few even acknowledge the NZ built cars, it therefore not surprising that there is little knowledge outside NZ about them. The CAMS reference is irrelevant in as much as we have no idea why NZ built cars were classified as they were in Australia. I doubt anyone involved in any licensing or business transactions with Lotus or Colin Chapman would be willing to have any documentation posted on the net. I only reponded due to my interest in these cars for many years and the desire to own one myself.
John, it is not, nor was not, my intention to "slander CAMS". I was curious as to why CAMS would have any mention of the Steele cars in their rules at all. I don't even know if they were exported. (Nor do I care).
As for a "lynch mob"! We obviously have different slants to reading, I read it and still do that Mike had made comments re the rights which Steeles did, or did not have to call them Lotus. Trevor made a comment that I felt warned Mike about making such comments, no more. You interpret that differentlly.
I agree with all the parties who actually care, that someone needs to "put up or shut up". That can be either Mike with documents to show that Steeles were acting illegally, or someone in NZ showing that there was some agreement. Of course the chances of finding something at the UK end would be nigh on impossible, even if they did exist in the time. That means that the only option is at the NZ end, again if those records still exist, after all how many years ago was the operation closed down?
I re-iterate, AT THE TIME, NZ had numerous visits from Lotus staff, surely action would have been taken rather than the tacit support which was shown?
Hi All,
I have been reading this thread with interest and a little disbelief!!
I am quite passionate about Lotus 7 cars, having restored a couple of Series 2 a Series 3 and a Series 4.
It is quite well known here in NZ that Steel Brothers did in fact build these cars, if the did or did not have the OK from Lotus (which I am quite sure they did) this many years on it will be very hard to get to the bottom of the real story.
Colin Chapman was great at doing deals, with many parties!! Talking to him to get the real answers is not going to happen.
The rest is as they say "IS HISTORY" Debate all you want, even say things you may regret, but the fact remains you will never know the true story. Well not 100%.
Cheers,
Gary.
John, CAMS over the years have not recognized a number of vehicles from NZ, as is their right.
Cossie/Mike, The "Mother Land" (GB) is also not the only country to have produced or still have certain makes of cars. There is a bit more to NZ history than being discovered by a explorer as a "little island" in the Pacific (actually 2 little islands). Been there done that on another thread.
Being involved in a wee bit of documentation over the years, “They (Steel Bros.) used the Lotus name on their cars but that was never approved by Lotus.” is a statement.
A lot is answered by Neville Milne and Zakspeed65
As my input and the essence of my complaint is becoming somewhat buried, I again repeat:-
You (Mike --- ? ) made this direct statement --- “They (Steel Bros.) used the Lotus name on their cars but that was never approved by Lotus.” What is more you included significant associated asides, all of which damages the goodwill of Steele Bros.
I trust the intelligence of readers to carefully read your posts together with statements by Paul and myself and come to logical conclusions.
At this point I restrain from more aptly worded comment. However I do call for an apology, particularly towards Steels Bros. and without attendant qualification and or sarcasm.
Let it be clear that I have made no threats, but I certainly have made accusations which still stand and the name of Steele Bros remains maligned.
Sincerely, Trevor.
P.S. As I have stated, Steele Bros. would not publicise if they were not entitled to do so. Please go here and refer history, period 1970 - 1980 for the facts:-
http://www.steelbro.com/en/about-us/history.html
Is the next thing to be discussed, that all the CKD's that were assembled in NZ, not genuine Fords, Humbers, Rovers or Vauxhalls.
I have been re-reading this thread from the start, as I was wondering why there was all this passion for such an ugly car. [your words Paul] Just to defuse things a bit here, could I ask someone what these things sold for when new? I remember when they appeared on the market, and wondering, who would willingly part with money to be seen in 'THAT'. Charlie Conway traded one on a Pantera....'a de-tomato-sauce' as we used to call them, and I'm not sure who got the better deal, but Charlie was a pretty shrewd character and knew his 'motors'. By all the comments I have been reading, the car was a complete dog, that required lots of mods from owners to get it right.....for track use anyway. Maybe Chapman and Co never intended it to be a race car, but should have guessed that it would be pressed into service. My knowledge of these things has taken a huge leap since Paul started this thread, so lets just move on, as we will NEVER know the true story, as dealing with the likes of Colin Chapman and Co, was as frustrating as duct-taping eels to a greasy pole.
Paul, your car doesn't look too bad. Maybe some seat covering and a bit of carpet, and she would be ready to shoot the breeze. What state is the engine in if it hasn't been run for a few years? I think I would be tempted to have some fun in it. Might be a long time before the house is paid off!!!!!!!
It was probably because CAMS knew that the later Steele cars had the 907 engine, wasn't exactly the best design for a race engine, so made the rule to avoid oil spills and associated bits left lying on the track from them when went 'bang' from being thrashed.
I feel safe saying this as have read plenty about 907’s as have one in my Steeles/Bainbridge '7' (daren't try getting away with calling it a Lotus now given the discussion here - lol).
Lindsay
Hi All,
It looks to me that with the exception of Mike I am the only person in this forums thread who resides outside NZ. Therefore I am not wearing the same “rose tinted spectacles” as you are!
However click on the following link and you can see that not all your citizens agrees with your statements in this thread: http://www.lotus7.co.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1537
I also believe that your conduct and behavior is appalling to somebody who just tries to piece the authentic Lotus 7 history together. Nobody has actually assisted him in his inquiry regarding Steel Bros Seven production numbers, chassis numbers, widebody models and so on.
It seems it is paramount to most of you to protect local interest instead of getting the authentic Steel Bros Lotus Seven history out whatever that may be. One thing is for sure threatening somebody with legal actions instead of helping them are not going to change anything.
I am not saying that Mike could not have worded his sentences differently here but then again so could Trevor. Also I do not know Mikes English language skills (no offence Mike) but this should be a forum that accepts anybody who makes a contribution as long as the tone is reasonably sober. The only treats I have seen here are the ones Trevor made.
I believe that this discussion is just going to continue in a non productive manner so I am retiring from this thread for good now. So “over and out”
Cheers,
John
John, thanks for that link.
I find it interesting that it mentions in a number of places the agreement with Lotus/Steeles as being legit. Certainly the later cars were a different kettle of fish, I don't think anyone has shown any issue with this, or perhaps I misread this. I guess we will never know.
As I previously said, proving this either way now, 35 years later would be nigh on impossible.
Without rancour, what was the CAMS issue?
Rose coloured specs, actually I have always abhorred the S4!
Ha - history repeats!
That's Paul & I, from this Forum, having a discussion (debate?) on that Forum about bits & pieces of information that we had gleaned around the Lotus/Steeles etc history within NZ. We are a small & proud country and this was an interesting time in NZ motoring history and I guess keen to protect the reputation whilst glean more information as to our cars.
Lindsay
Hi All,
John, you have nailed this subject right on. I am glad that someone can see through what really is going on here. I do understand why you have elected to stop writing here; it is not worth the aggravation of being threatened to be sued. However I believe that you (in your haste?) generalized a little bit. Paul Wilkinson has been very helpful.
It is apparent that for some New Zealanders like the Trevors, it is more important to protect national interest than getting the actual documented facts (whatever they may be) out. However following is taken from Lotus Club NZ:
“they (Lotus) weren't thrilled that Steele’s had been using good old Kiwi ingenuity to keep building as ‘Lotus’ badge way beyond”
"The cars that are not strictly legit as far as I know are the ones where Steel Bros started arsing about with the body shape/dimensions and engines etc. They happily slapped Lotus chassis plates on them”
I HAVE NOT written the above mentioned Trevor, so no reason to bring the “artillery” out this time. However sometimes there is no smoke without fire. This doesn’t actually mean anything, ooh for heaven sake no:)
An overprotective mother who always claims that her teenage son is an angel even though the Police just took him stealing. I am not comparing anything here OOOH no:)
To Trevor the "self-proclaimed judge and executor" in this forum. I have now edited my contribution so it now has absolutely no meaning to anybody. A certain manufacture is now called “Company X”. A certain human interfaced device on wheels is now called “Company X 7”. A certain country of the Trevors is now called “A country close to Australia”. I sincerely hope that this cannot offend anyone now.
All I initially wanted was “a good yarn” about the “Company X 7”, especially how many made, VIN numbers, Super 907 Etc. It has never been my intention to offend, insult or slander anybody. I don’t even know “Company X” so I have no opinion about them. Somebody wrote that they paid their bills on time. That has absolutely nothing to do with this issue and honestly I politely don’t care.
Finally it was Trevor who started the threats against me as John so correctly has observed. I am sorry if some people from “A country close to Australia” can’t see that. Trevor how much research have you done on the Lotus 7? You are good at making treats (and demands) but apparently nothing else. I have no respect for people like you.
So have a nice life because I am also signing off now. I am doing this Lotus 7 research in my spare time and I have now wasted enough time on – actually almost nothing useful! Researching history supposes to be fun and entertaining, meeting nice people Etc. Not the harassment and aggravation I predominately got here. John and Paul, I did not mean you. You two guys have been helpful and constructive.
Somebody once said: “Why sore with turkeys when you can fly with eagles” so I will do just that.
This is the first time I have been threatened in a forum on the Internet.
John, by the way, what the heck is cams? Please drop me a PM.
Best Whishes,
Mike
What an odd series of exchanges this has been.
In those days, many NZ based manufacturers had agreements with over-seas suppliers of technology or materials; the company I represented had such agreements with the Associated Engineering group, in the UK and the Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co, in the US., to name just two.
In neither case were 'letters' or correspondence retained after the period required by the Companies Office...7 years, as I recall.
At that time those letters had no special significance, certainly none that was historical and the space required to store company records, ad-infinitum, would have been considerable. I am sure there was a similar requirement in other countries, including the UK.
For those very practical and legitimate reasons, I would be VERY surprised if any commercial correspondence still existed between Chapman and Steel Brothers, or Chapman and anyone else for that matter........such correspondence would be a very odd exception to what was then, the way in which business was conducted.
Therefore one is left to consider each company and each company's commercial reputation, in it's entirety. Having had direct knowledge of Steel Bros, I CAN assert that they were solvent; adhered to whatever agreements were made with the company I was employed by; and had a reputation of producing well engineered and well made products. I have never had direct commercial dealings with Lotus, apart from having the misfortune to own an early Mk1 Lotus Cortina.
Neville Milne
Do you know that every time I sat down at my computer to check on the latest casualty from 'The Gun-fight at the Steelbros Corral', I fully expected our friend in the UK, New Zealand's foremost motoring historian no less, to wade in with the AK47, and blow everyone away. When the dust had settled, he would give his usual well measured, well researched reply, and the survivors of the shootout would emerge from behind water troughs and bars to fight another day. But sadly, no. I think I shall just retire to the bar myself and see if I can join a game of cards, with my back to the wall of course!!!!!
Carlo....be my guest.
I just wish I had the sanity to not have posted what I thought was a reasoned, and intending to moderate reply! Don't like Speights, can I have a Beam?
Yep, drinks are on the house....Pauls new house. I think we all deserve one [or two] after that hammering. I was checking the site at 2am in the morning, to see the latest casualty, after I had pointed Percy at the Porcelain!!!!!!
I apologise to those who by now must regard the points now being made as trivial, but as my name is being continually and repeatedly publicly denigrated by a hidden non identity, I must execute a right of reply.
(1) Yes, regardless of their nationality, I find it important to protect others and organisations against incorrect derogatory allegations.
(2) It was stated by way of an insult in post #74 ---”They (Steels Bros.) used the Lotus name on their cars but that was never approved by Lotus”, i.e. an absolute, unmitigated statement of fact without qualification and based on hearsay.
(3) I call on readers to please carefully examine my initial post #81 in full, whereby I was carefully courteous and did not in any way attack the tender footed “ ‘cossie’ Mike”, or threaten litigation as has been continually claimed. I posted as follows:-
“You are stating that Steel Bros. were operating illegally. Provide proof or desist from distributing slander, you could be judged liable.” i.e. I recorded no more than a robust clear statement and request, together with clear advice suggesting caution. N.B. I did not state “otherwise I will have you judged liable", or make any threatening inference as is here being continually, stupidly alleged.
(4) I also ask readers to note the incessant sarcasm and the tone of the replies directed towards me and in particular this gem. “Put your word where your mouth is my friend, and if you are right and I am wrong – I will eat my words and write here that I was wrong.” Please refer post #85, i.e. my tempered reply to this nastiness,
(5) Mike ---? has not desisted and continues to brow beat with concerted efforts, to prove that his statements which damage the good will of Steele Bros. remain accepted as correct. He obstinately continues with this diatribe, now quoting, presumably as absolute evidence, off the cuff comments by Lotus Club N.Z. stating. “They (Steele Bros.) happily slapped Lotus plates on them.”
(6) A direct and personal attack, again including ego driven ongoing sarcasm, has now been made against me as follows:-
”I HAVE NOT written the above mentioned Trevor, so no reason to bring the “artillery” out this time. However sometimes there is no smoke without fire. This doesn’t actually mean anything, ooh for heaven sake no :)
An overprotective mother who always claims that her teenage son is an angel even though the Police just took him stealing. I am not comparing anything here OOOH no :)
To Trevor the "self-proclaimed judge and executor" in this forum. I have now edited my contribution so it now has absolutely no meaning to anybody. A certain manufacture is now called “Company X”. A certain human interfaced device on wheels is now called “Company X 7”. A certain country of the Trevors is now called “A country close to Australia”. I sincerely hope that this cannot offend anyone now.”
(7) It is proclaimed that evidence has now cunningly been removed, notably without honestly completing the reasons why detail by way of disclosure. In spite of this, evidence remains clearly reproduced throughout the thread, whereby the name of Steele Bros. has been placed in jeopardy.
Obviously no apology is forthcoming. The required testicles and intestinal fortitude being sadly lacking. However let it be clear that, in spite of of a great deal of bovine manure excreted from a confirmed steer in hiding, Steele Bros. are reputable and remain innocent.
Sincerely, Trevor.
Sorely proclaimed, "Threatening, demanding, self-proclaimed judge and executor" but even so, is happy to soar with kiwi turkeys.