Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Jerold Sit posted on your Wall.

Expand Messages
  • kim wade
      ... From: kim wade Subject: Re: Jerold Sit posted on your Wall. To: Reply to Comment
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment


       




      --- On Thu, 9/1/11, kim wade <kimwade1956@...> wrote:

      From: kim wade <kimwade1956@...>
      Subject: Re: Jerold Sit posted on your Wall.
      To: "Reply to Comment" <c+2085nd1000000hn1fxc0k0000rptyrg2x000000hn1fxc000000kf1z1d1v81i@...>
      Date: Thursday, September 1, 2011, 7:55 AM

      Since this post by Chris on Tuesday. It turns out Chris or Chris's company's sign was noted to have been on a home that according to the post (re: this thread) never sold.
      The homeowner ended up having to rent the home after not selling after being listed for a long time.
      It is exactly that scenario where my business model differs from the failed, out dated business model Chris is trying to protect on behalf of his fellow union/cartel members.
      A position I believe, clearly works against the "fiduciary" interest of the client.
       
      I believe sellers are not aware that a licensee's affiliation with these unions "can" result in dimmished efforts to sale of their property. The seller needs "one" buyer any hinderance to that goal is costly to the seller.
      For instance, the blue box is accessible only by members of the union and not all licensees. My business model is too make access to the property to all licensees.
      Chris obviously thinks that is wrong. I believe that is what the seller believes he's contracting for when listing the property. That is what I intend to deliver without the restrictions the "union" favors 
      I wonder if the person/company listing the property noted by the poster on this thread proudly told his seller, access to this blue box is by members of my union,"exclusively".
      The question is how does the seller benefit from culling the pool of potential purchasers?
      And if this limitation is such a good thing. Why can't the agent disclose it clearly at the time the listing is signed???
      Out of the several millions people licensed to sale real estate in this country less then 1/2 are members of "the union". So limiting access to seller's property to only 50% of the licensed agents.
      I believe should be
      disclosed clearly at the time the property is listed. The "union" obviously opposed this!
       
      My business model is simple, " make the property available to all licensees without distinction" .
      Chris and the union obviously vehemently disagree with the notion of full disclosure to the seller.
      That is sad! The seller is giving us an opportunity to earn a handsome commission to find a buyer for his property. To betray that trust in the manner Chris seems to be championing is opportunity for me to distinguish our differences.
      Look, to settle all this. Chris should post a copy of his listing agreement on Face Book and highlight where it tells the seller about the "access and compensation limitations" to his property in that document. 
      Then we'll get the seller to post if that was his understanding.
      It's as simple as that! The ball is in Chris's court!
       
      The Blue box on the door means you pay more!
       
       
      --- On Thu, 9/1/11, Facebook <fbmessage+ayy62sy6@...> wrote:

      From: Facebook <fbmessage+ayy62sy6@...>
      Subject: Jerold Sit posted on your Wall.
      To: "Kim Wade" <kimwade1956@...>
      Date: Thursday, September 1, 2011, 6:31 AM

      facebook
      Jerold Sit posted on your Wall.
      "Chris Merck
      Jerold, due to your advertising with Kim Wade's Show I'm forced to remove you from my contact list as well as let everyone know with whom we have contact to avoid your business due to your advertising with Kim Wade as along as you continue to, based on his senseless and erroneous attacks on myself, my industry, and my colleagues. I will now consider your choice of advertising with a person who spreads false comments and harmful remarks as reason enough, should you continue to choose his show as an avenue of marketing, to not recommend your business due to its affiliation with a show lacking professionalism and truth.
      LikeUnlike · · Tuesday at 11:57pm

      Jerold Sit: He wants to "bully" me, The AC Doctors?"
      View This Wall Post
      Reply to this email to comment on this Wall post.
      The message was sent to kimwade1956@.... If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future or have your email address used for friend suggestions, you can unsubscribe. Facebook, Inc. P.O. Box 10005, Palo Alto, CA 94303
    • Lisa
      ha ! idiots out of the woodwork! YOU go KIM!! Kudos to Mr. Sitt ! you keep backing em down ! LHW ... -- Lisa H. Williams Madison, MS ha !  idiots out of the
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        ha !  idiots out of the woodwork! 
        YOU go KIM!!
        Kudos to Mr. Sitt !

        you keep backing em down !

        LHW



        On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:02 AM, kim wade <kimwade1956@...> wrote:
         



         




        --- On Thu, 9/1/11, kim wade <kimwade1956@...> wrote:

        From: kim wade <kimwade1956@...>
        Subject: Re: Jerold Sit posted on your Wall.
        To: "Reply to Comment" <c+2085nd1000000hn1fxc0k0000rptyrg2x000000hn1fxc000000kf1z1d1v81i@...>
        Date: Thursday, September 1, 2011, 7:55 AM

        Since this post by Chris on Tuesday. It turns out Chris or Chris's company's sign was noted to have been on a home that according to the post (re: this thread) never sold.
        The homeowner ended up having to rent the home after not selling after being listed for a long time.
        It is exactly that scenario where my business model differs from the failed, out dated business model Chris is trying to protect on behalf of his fellow union/cartel members.
        A position I believe, clearly works against the "fiduciary" interest of the client.
         
        I believe sellers are not aware that a licensee's affiliation with these unions "can" result in dimmished efforts to sale of their property. The seller needs "one" buyer any hinderance to that goal is costly to the seller.
        For instance, the blue box is accessible only by members of the union and not all licensees. My business model is too make access to the property to all licensees.
        Chris obviously thinks that is wrong. I believe that is what the seller believes he's contracting for when listing the property. That is what I intend to deliver without the restrictions the "union" favors 
        I wonder if the person/company listing the property noted by the poster on this thread proudly told his seller, access to this blue box is by members of my union,"exclusively".
        The question is how does the seller benefit from culling the pool of potential purchasers?
        And if this limitation is such a good thing. Why can't the agent disclose it clearly at the time the listing is signed???
        Out of the several millions people licensed to sale real estate in this country less then 1/2 are members of "the union". So limiting access to seller's property to only 50% of the licensed agents.
        I believe should be
        disclosed clearly at the time the property is listed. The "union" obviously opposed this!
         
        My business model is simple, " make the property available to all licensees without distinction" .
        Chris and the union obviously vehemently disagree with the notion of full disclosure to the seller.
        That is sad! The seller is giving us an opportunity to earn a handsome commission to find a buyer for his property. To betray that trust in the manner Chris seems to be championing is opportunity for me to distinguish our differences.
        Look, to settle all this. Chris should post a copy of his listing agreement on Face Book and highlight where it tells the seller about the "access and compensation limitations" to his property in that document. 
        Then we'll get the seller to post if that was his understanding.
        It's as simple as that! The ball is in Chris's court!
         
        The Blue box on the door means you pay more!
         
         
        --- On Thu, 9/1/11, Facebook <fbmessage+ayy62sy6@...> wrote:

        From: Facebook <fbmessage+ayy62sy6@...>
        Subject: Jerold Sit posted on your Wall.
        To: "Kim Wade" <kimwade1956@...>
        Date: Thursday, September 1, 2011, 6:31 AM

        facebook
        Jerold Sit posted on your Wall.
        "Chris Merck
        Jerold, due to your advertising with Kim Wade's Show I'm forced to remove you from my contact list as well as let everyone know with whom we have contact to avoid your business due to your advertising with Kim Wade as along as you continue to, based on his senseless and erroneous attacks on myself, my industry, and my colleagues. I will now consider your choice of advertising with a person who spreads false comments and harmful remarks as reason enough, should you continue to choose his show as an avenue of marketing, to not recommend your business due to its affiliation with a show lacking professionalism and truth.
        LikeUnlike · · Tuesday at 11:57pm

        Jerold Sit: He wants to "bully" me, The AC Doctors?"
        View This Wall Post
        Reply to this email to comment on this Wall post.
        The message was sent to kimwade1956@.... If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future or have your email address used for friend suggestions, you can unsubscribe. Facebook, Inc. P.O. Box 10005, Palo Alto, CA 94303




        --
        Lisa H. Williams
        Madison, MS

      • kim wade
        No more Mr. Nice guy!   As Americans, our destiny is not written for us, but,by us ! ... From: Lisa Subject: Re: [FreedomFirst]
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          No more Mr. Nice guy!


           
          As Americans,
          "our destiny is not written for us, but,by us"!


          --- On Thu, 9/1/11, Lisa <Lisa.Williams99@...> wrote:

          From: Lisa <Lisa.Williams99@...>
          Subject: Re: [FreedomFirst] Re: Jerold Sit posted on your Wall.
          To: FreedomFirst@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Thursday, September 1, 2011, 8:05 AM

           
          ha !  idiots out of the woodwork! 
          YOU go KIM!!
          Kudos to Mr. Sitt !

          you keep backing em down !

          LHW



          On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:02 AM, kim wade <kimwade1956@...> wrote:
           


           




          --- On Thu, 9/1/11, kim wade <kimwade1956@...> wrote:

          From: kim wade <kimwade1956@...>
          Subject: Re: Jerold Sit posted on your Wall.
          To: "Reply to Comment" <c+2085nd1000000hn1fxc0k0000rptyrg2x000000hn1fxc000000kf1z1d1v81i@...>
          Date: Thursday, September 1, 2011, 7:55 AM

          Since this post by Chris on Tuesday. It turns out Chris or Chris's company's sign was noted to have been on a home that according to the post (re: this thread) never sold.
          The homeowner ended up having to rent the home after not selling after being listed for a long time.
          It is exactly that scenario where my business model differs from the failed, out dated business model Chris is trying to protect on behalf of his fellow union/cartel members.
          A position I believe, clearly works against the "fiduciary" interest of the client.
           
          I believe sellers are not aware that a licensee's affiliation with these unions "can" result in dimmished efforts to sale of their property. The seller needs "one" buyer any hinderance to that goal is costly to the seller.
          For instance, the blue box is accessible only by members of the union and not all licensees. My business model is too make access to the property to all licensees.
          Chris obviously thinks that is wrong. I believe that is what the seller believes he's contracting for when listing the property. That is what I intend to deliver without the restrictions the "union" favors 
          I wonder if the person/company listing the property noted by the poster on this thread proudly told his seller, access to this blue box is by members of my union,"exclusively".
          The question is how does the seller benefit from culling the pool of potential purchasers?
          And if this limitation is such a good thing. Why can't the agent disclose it clearly at the time the listing is signed???
          Out of the several millions people licensed to sale real estate in this country less then 1/2 are members of "the union". So limiting access to seller's property to only 50% of the licensed agents.
          I believe should be
          disclosed clearly at the time the property is listed. The "union" obviously opposed this!
           
          My business model is simple, " make the property available to all licensees without distinction" .
          Chris and the union obviously vehemently disagree with the notion of full disclosure to the seller.
          That is sad! The seller is giving us an opportunity to earn a handsome commission to find a buyer for his property. To betray that trust in the manner Chris seems to be championing is opportunity for me to distinguish our differences.
          Look, to settle all this. Chris should post a copy of his listing agreement on Face Book and highlight where it tells the seller about the "access and compensation limitations" to his property in that document. 
          Then we'll get the seller to post if that was his understanding.
          It's as simple as that! The ball is in Chris's court!
           
          The Blue box on the door means you pay more!
           
           
          --- On Thu, 9/1/11, Facebook <fbmessage+ayy62sy6@...> wrote:

          From: Facebook <fbmessage+ayy62sy6@...>
          Subject: Jerold Sit posted on your Wall.
          To: "Kim Wade" <kimwade1956@...>
          Date: Thursday, September 1, 2011, 6:31 AM

          facebook
          Jerold Sit posted on your Wall.
          "Chris Merck
          Jerold, due to your advertising with Kim Wade's Show I'm forced to remove you from my contact list as well as let everyone know with whom we have contact to avoid your business due to your advertising with Kim Wade as along as you continue to, based on his senseless and erroneous attacks on myself, my industry, and my colleagues. I will now consider your choice of advertising with a person who spreads false comments and harmful remarks as reason enough, should you continue to choose his show as an avenue of marketing, to not recommend your business due to its affiliation with a show lacking professionalism and truth.
          LikeUnlike · · Tuesday at 11:57pm

          Jerold Sit: He wants to "bully" me, The AC Doctors?"
          View This Wall Post
          Reply to this email to comment on this Wall post.
          The message was sent to kimwade1956@.... If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future or have your email address used for friend suggestions, you can unsubscribe. Facebook, Inc. P.O. Box 10005, Palo Alto, CA 94303



          --
          Lisa H. Williams
          Madison, MS

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.