CB Finance debate, Egg Recipes, etc.

[Pheroze]

I might be wrong, but it looks like to me that Safari Ed is Kalkomey Enterprises, LLC and not CB.

It seemed to me that there was some licensing deal in there.

 

[Savage Hunter]

Damn hard to fry and even harder to scramble!

I looked back at this thread to see what I might have missed. I came up with one perplexing question......

what are you doing with such a varied collection of "yani eggs" ?

 

[spike.t]

.....you sure that someone wasnt just on that plate....?.......

 

[enysse]

What is that next to the eggs and meat?

 

[MAdcox]

What is that next to the eggs and meat?

Beans! Helps warm up the saddle on a cold morning.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

What is that next to the eggs and meat?

Liquid Plumber for the body.

 

[enysse]

Beans! Helps warm up the saddle on a cold morning.

Lol, that would not be for me.

 

[lwaters]

Is that liver refried beans and eggs?

 

[enysse]

Now if we could replace the beans with French toast and syrup.....that would be wonderful. Maybe add some blueberries or strawberries.

 

[sestoppelman]

Keep the eggs, chuck the rest!

 

[sestoppelman]

So CB left, I think that's a shame, but I don't blame him after that drubbing he took here. And Supercat? Anyone heard from it lately? Just came here to bash CB I guess? What a guy.

 

[Dragan N.]

I'm not terribly surprised that Craig Boddington (who, for the record, I've never met) decided to leave this site. But I am very disappointed.

Regardless of what you may think of Boddington personally, his departure is a loss for AfricaHunting.com and for all of its members. There are very few hunters alive today who have Boddington's experience with African hunting, and none that I know of who are prepared to share that extensive experience with all of us. And no, I'm not naive. I understand that his being a sponsor was undoubtedly a business decision, but it was a fact that he and his staff were prepared to, and did, engage with members. And now, that opportunity is gone.

Some will undoubtedly say "so what" or "who cares", but the reality is that none of you who believe those things have the right to speak for all of us. I'm sure you will say you weren't speaking for all of us, just for yourselves. But, in fact, you were.

If you don't like someone, or you don't like what they have to say, or how they say it, then for heaven's sake, don't read what they say, or take them on on what they say. But when you raise utterly irrelevant matters and behave like a pack of rabid dogs - or trolls - it can't be a surprise that the target of your vitriol decides he's not in it for this.

By all means, take on someone's hunting credentials. But to bring someone's personal life into the forum, and especially their financial affairs, which are completely unrelated to the purposes of this forum, and then to go on, and on, and on, ad nauseam, refusing to let it go, even when so many members tried to get the conversation away from the irrelevant facts, is not only necessary, it's entirely uncalled for.

I'm sure many, if not most, of us, have something in our past which we'd rather not have paraded on the internet. If I know a member has a drinking problem, should I raise that? If a member had a DUI, should I put his mug shot in a post in response to a hunting issue? If I know a member has had an affair, even a public one, should I publish that for the world to see?

You don't get a pass on this kind of conduct just because the information is already a matter of public record. It wasn't relevant to hunting and it wasn't relevant to any debate. Some people had a hate on for someone and just decided to unleash the dogs. You want to publish that kind of crap? Go do it on the site of some scurrilous tabloid. Don't do it here. We don't want it, and we don't need it.

This is what the antis, and the crazies do on social media. Attack, attack, attack, bring in all sorts of irrelevant garbage, and then express surprise when someone says they won't stick around for a gutter fight. That's what this became, and it wasn't necessary and it sure wasn't edifying.

You've also impacted Jerome's business. If I were Boddington, I wouldn't have much positive to tell people who might be considering becoming sponsors. And before you waste my time, no, I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't, take on sponsors, even to the point of their leaving the site. When they've done something relevant to what's going on here, or to the members, then of course, we should take them on. The actions of bad apples should be exposed to the light of day, and if they leave over that, then good riddance. Jerome understands that, and that goes with the territory. But the we drive sponsors away for personal reasons, or for reasons unrelated to hunting or to anything they've done or posted here? He hasn't signed up for that.

Which sponsor should we drive out of the site next, for irrelevant or spurious reasons?

This behaviour is a major reason why good people don't want to have anything to do with politics, and it seems some believe that we should we import it here. Well, to those of you who participated, you owe Boddington, Jerome and the rest of us an apology, and you should have the decency to be ashamed of yourselves.

But I won't wait for any of that to happen.

Hank2211,

I respectfully disagree with you that Mr. Boddington's finances or what happened between him and his investors is utterly irrelevant. CB was a sponsor here, and as you rightfully asserted that was a business decision and is so for every sponsor on here. Sponsors take a sponsorship on this site because they offer services that members on here want. We want their services/stuff and they want our money. So if CB's company or the company he represents wants to do business with this site's members I certainly don't think that his bankruptcy case with his investors is utterly irrelevant. If you were planning on doing business with someone id imagine you'd want to know if they ever had a bankruptcy and what were the circumstances surrounding it- especially how murky CB's appeared to be. The criteria I personally use is if I were to enter into a business agreement with CB (or insert random sponsor) would the info (call it "dirty laundry") revealed on them have a significant impact on my decision to do so? In this case, to me at least, it would, hence I would consider to be relevant info to post about a site sponsor... Now the fact that they had a DUI or marital problems etc.. would be pretty irrelevant to me and something I see no strong reason for to post...

If CB had come here as a private individual, not as a sponsor, I'd certainly agree that his financial situation is not of particular relevance and his extensive hunting experience should be the focus. I don't think anyone denies that he is one of the most knowledgeable hunters alive today.

I certainly also share your regret that CB left, as his level of knowledge about hunting and interaction with members would certainly be of benefit to the forum. But the concerns that supercat raised in this thread were legitimate and I wouldn't say they were the work of a troll. I personally would have liked to hear CB's side of the story also- its best when you have both sides jmo...

 

[mark-hunter]

Maybe yes, maybe no.

CB, as approved sponsor offered his new project of safari education on the forum with discount for forum members.
One of my friends purchased it, and he is happy with this product, and also with discount given to him as forum member.

I would say it started all well, and probably with good intentions, but ended as it ended.

 

[Hank2211]

Hank2211,

I respectfully disagree with you that Mr. Boddington's finances or what happened between him and his investors is utterly irrelevant. CB was a sponsor here, and as you rightfully asserted that was a business decision and is so for every sponsor on here. Sponsors take a sponsorship on this site because they offer services that members on here want. We want their services/stuff and they want our money. So if CB's company or the company he represents wants to do business with this site's members I certainly don't think that his bankruptcy case with his investors is utterly irrelevant. If you were planning on doing business with someone id imagine you'd want to know if they ever had a bankruptcy and what were the circumstances surrounding it- especially how murky CB's appeared to be. The criteria I personally use is if I were to enter into a business agreement with CB (or insert random sponsor) would the info (call it "dirty laundry") revealed on them have a significant impact on my decision to do so? In this case, to me at least, it would, hence I would consider to be relevant info to post about a site sponsor... Now the fact that they had a DUI or marital problems etc.. would be pretty irrelevant to me and something I see no strong reason for to post...

If CB had come here as a private individual, not as a sponsor, I'd certainly agree that his financial situation is not of particular relevance and his extensive hunting experience should be the focus. I don't think anyone denies that he is one of the most knowledgeable hunters alive today.

I certainly also share your regret that CB left, as his level of knowledge about hunting and interaction with members would certainly be of benefit to the forum. But the concerns that supercat raised in this thread were legitimate and I wouldn't say they were the work of a troll. I personally would have liked to hear CB's side of the story also- its best when you have both sides jmo...

Dragan, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

If any member of the forum were considering getting into business with Boddington, then I believe his previous financial affairs would be relevant. But that wouldn't be related to hunting, and wouldn't be a proper matter for this forum. None of the services he offers through his business, which his sponsorship promotes, requires, as far as I can tell, that anyone take a financial risk with him.

Of course, everyone takes the risk of getting value for money in buying goods or services from anyone, but if that were the test, then every member, or every sponsor at least, should have to disclose their entire financial history before offering any goods or services. My guess is that given the boom and bust nature of the safari business for example, more than one outfitter - not restricted to Africa - has experienced financial issues. If a sponsor has run off with hunters deposits in the past, yes, of course that's relevant. If a sponsor made some bad investments, or took on debt right before the financial crash . . . likely not relevant.

Let me put that another way. Do you check into the financial background of every person from whom you buy goods or services? Let me make it a bit easier - let's say anyone with whom you plan on spending around $150 - I think that's the cost of Boddington's online courses? I know I sure don't - there aren't enough hours in the day, nor would it be particularly relevant. Doing business with someone is different than getting into business with someone, and what's relevant in one case likely isn't in the other, unless we're talking about an order of magnitude more money than is involved here.

What we had in this particular case is a member who had a personal issue with the impact that Boddington's financial difficulties had on friends. I understand that. But how that's relevant to what he was doing on this this site was, and remains, even after your explanation, a mystery to me.

 

[JGRaider]

It's relevant to me to know what kind of person I'm dealing with. I have little respect for people that don't pay their bills, while continuing with the same lifestyle. To each his own.

 

[BRICKBURN]

safari in Congo with Craig Boddington

 

[Pheroze]

Man that is an awesome animal

 

[wesheltonj]

(1) I maybe wrong, but I don't think CB was ever here. I think Kalkomey Enterprises, LLC was here on AH, as that's who runs Safari Ed, not CB. I suspect they saw that sales off of AH were not going to be great after the beating CB was taking here. It looks like to me that Kalkomey has a licensing agreement with CB for content.

(2) I believe that CB was personally on another forum and left after he took a beatdown, more then one on AH.

(3) I will agree that CB does a lot of hunting for a guy that only owns a Winchester M70 Featherweight in 308 (that's the only rifle he listed). He must use a lot of camp guns in Africa, I am fairly sure that a 308 is not a legal caliber to take 100 buffalo. Of course, that does support the proposition of not taking your own gun, a frequent debate here on AH.

(4) The Bongo hunt above is just an other illustration that he exited bankruptcy with more then just a "fresh start."

 

[wesheltonj]

I hate to bring back up this thread, however after receiving an E-mail newsletter from Sports Afield and the discussion of the quality of American Guns, seems fair.

". . . My favorite whitetail rifle is my Todd Ramirez 7×57…I’ve experimented with more powerful scopes, but it usually wears this Schmidt & Bender 1.5-6×44, clear and bright, and enough magnification for the country I use it in. . . "

http://sportsafield.com/use-enough-scope/

Here's a guy who when he filed Chapter 7, claimed he only owned a Winchester M70 Featherweight in 308. But now he owns a Todd Ramirez 7x57 (saw one valued for about 12.5k). Talk about a "fresh start."

 

[Red Leg]

I hate to bring back up this thread, however after receiving an E-mail newsletter from Sports Afield and the discussion of the quality of American Guns, seems fair.

". . . My favorite whitetail rifle is my Todd Ramirez 7×57…I’ve experimented with more powerful scopes, but it usually wears this Schmidt & Bender 1.5-6×44, clear and bright, and enough magnification for the country I use it in. . . "

http://sportsafield.com/use-enough-scope/

Here's a guy who when he filed Chapter 7, claimed he only owned a Winchester M70 Featherweight in 308. But now he owns a Todd Ramirez 7x57 (saw one valued for about 12.5k). Talk about a "fresh start."

"My Todd Ramirez 7x57" The really fascinating thing is that he waxed so eloquently in the outdoor media about having this rifle built some six years ago or so. Maybe he "forgot" about it during the chapter filing? At the same time he was telling folks he couldn't pay what he owed them for a hunt - people for whom the value of the scope alone would have made a real difference.