|
I agree with ID that it is really impossible for any of us to know for sure what the real story is in this case. Florida says one thing. CV says another. Pac55 supports SOME of what CV says, but even he doesn't necessarily know all the facts. BOA will make its own evaluation and, whether one side or the other feels that evaluation is fair or not, that will ultimately be the only evaluation that will matter in the end, at least as far as CV and Florida are concerned. I doubt Florida will ever stay there again (or CV let him without prepayment) regardless of what BOA rules, nor in most likelihood will any of his friends who believe him (and if anyone does, caveat emptor). Of course, the rest of us are still free to weigh in here with our OPINIONS on the matter, based on either the information presented here and/or our own personal experiences with various parties involved, but that is all they are - OPINIONS.
For my part, I will offer this one opinion - I've never met Florida personally but, based on the statements of others who have and who I do know and trust, I'd probably never call Florida was a cheapskate (many other things perhaps, but never a cheapskate). Does that mean that he acted entirely properly in this case or that there wasn't at least some misunderstanding on his part? No. It does seem that, at the very least, he stood up Pac55 which was not the most responsible thing to do. Beyond that I really have no idea whose story is the truth. But I suspect it most likely is neither and the truth falls somewhere in between.
All this other talk in this thread such as whether someone sent Florida a threatening PM over this matter (which would really be absurd if it is true) or merely an insulting one, or whether ID is being inconsistent in his statements about what sorts of PMs are proper or not, is all really an irrelevant distraction from the original topic of this thread. Similarly, it is even more absurd that some self-appointed clown "Judge" is spending so much time twisting arounds remarks by ID and passing "rulings" on them, when that (non-)issue is completely tangential to the case on the docket - namely CV vs. Florida (the person, not the state). That case, and the issue we should really be focused on, is whether we should "beware if we stay at the Casa Vino"
LK's contribution is a slightly different story. His account also has little direct bearing on whether Florida's or CV's account of what was really owed for THIS PARTICULAR trip was true, since he wasn't actually there for THIS PARTICULAR trip either. All it really serves, regarding that case, is as a character reference for Florida and we all know they're good friends. HOWEVER, the more significant aspect of LK's post goes well beyond the particular issue of who was right or wrong in this particular incident and reflects on the larger and much more significant issue of concern to the REST of us, namely whether we should ALL beware if we stay at the Casa Vino because of various problems there in GENERAL. In that respect, I think LK's post makes the particular issue of what happened between CV and Florida somewhat beside the point. Enough questions have been raised about the quality of this particular hotel in terms of cleanliness, service, condition of its electrical and plumbing infrastructure and, oh yeah, POSSIBLY its billing as well, that I'd personally probably never chance staying there myself. As with most things, however, YMMV.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
Has he stayed there? 
Does he do repairs on the building? 
Or is he here to just bust everybody's balls? 
The facts are before you believe it or not and frankly I don't give a dam what he believes, he wasn't THERE. 
