I could be way off base as to why it was taken down,

There was even one post in the thread that, IMHO, was extremely stalkerish.

Mr. Rimmasch does watch this page and others like it however, he reminds all of us that he did delete his personal account on RYPN on account of threads like this one and the miss-handling of these threads by certain (not all) of the moderators on this page.

Suffice to say, Mr. Rimmasch asked that we post the following;

[from an email from Mr. Rimmasch to the Social Media Team of WRC]

I have never cowered away from answering an honest question. There are questions presented above that deserve answers. To the best of my ability and subject to any pending legal action, this is the best I can provide at this time;

Corbin, KY: The enclosed article was a knee jerk reaction of a reporter that was present at a Board meeting where we had asked for additional funding based on additions to the scope of work. Some of the increase was granted, the scope was downsized on other items. The project finished for the requested amount of money and as we speak, the City of Corbin is one of our best references on project performance. Last week Corbin provided WRC two very positive references and two weeks ago, we did a few minor additions to the project, free of charge. Great relationship between the two parties.

CNJ 1021: This project is behind time wise. It has some very critical items that have been excluded from the scope of work that we are working on with the NPS as we speak. Despite the delays in clarification on the scope of work, we continue to work on the car as much as we can pending the scope clarifications.

Ecuadorian Steam: No, the payment issues between the parties were never resolved. WRC scrapped the boiler for about $550.00 and we had a massive pizza party. Though we had a strong case, Ecuador does not recognize international law and as such, any judgment on our side would not have been enforceable. We walked away from the case.

WRC Contracts: Our contracts are as "iron clad" as they can be. Our contract template, about 11-15 pages was written by a team of lawyers who, have litigated and won a number of "service provider" cases. I would remind all those who care that WRC has a "zero loss run record." That means, we have never litigated a case (kept any/all disputes out of court) and we have lost no cases nor do we have any pay outs on any case/project. We bond and protect every project and we insure our projects (something not many, if any other contractors in our industry do.). The fact that we bond our projects makes us more of a target for litigation. Some customers, seeing that we have insurance, are actually going after some kind of "insurance" claim, rather than any form of tangible damage claim. So far, we have not lost any dispute. We have never had to pay out on a performance bond either.

In addition, we are a growing company. Often, as you grow, you become a target. Our contracts are written in such a way that all of our projects are "time and materials, cost plus" projects. We do project and offer a "cost magnitude projection" but we have very strong language in our contracts that excludes any notion of guaranteed pricing. Since I am being transparent in this message, we have fought three such disputes in the past year. 100% total full paid victories for WRC, including repayment of legal fees. Our contracts are very well written. Lastly, our contracts include our fees and pricing and they also exclude very particular items.

Why the post remains and why I have not fought the post;

To be very honest, posts like this actually support the position of WRC. We use and will continue to use forums like this and others to defend ourselves and our position. Those who post messages like this and or those who purposely strive to deface or defame WRC are quickly called out in disputes and are quickly referred to as "sour grapes." Once you are defined as a "sour grape," you can impinge your ability to argue in an appropriate manner. Now, there is a certain Esquire on this page that will disagree with me however, I would remind him that he has lost far more cases than I and my lawyers have ever lost.

So, have at me and my company. Enjoy being the ones who say "na na na na look what I found." It doesn't hurt me or the cause. In conclusion; The topic IS contrary to the rules of the page. It has nothing to do with preservation or a preservation topic. It is a business matter to be resolved between two parties. It has everything to do with defaming an industry contractor and was posted for that very reason and frankly, it has no place on the page, but so be it. Like I said, it has no impact on me or my company.

To date, we have received no notice of a compliant filed against WRC.

Again, I left the page over a year ago because some (not all) moderators on this page lack morals and ethics when it comes to proper handling of posts. We have a company account so we can answer questions like these.

John E. Rimmasch

Posted by the Social Media Team of WRC

_________________

WRC Contracts: Our contracts are as "iron clad" as they can be. Our contract template, about 11-15 pages was written by a team of lawyers who, have litigated and won a number of "service provider" cases. I would remind all those who care that WRC has a "zero loss run record." That means, we have never litigated a case (kept any/all disputes out of court) and we have lost no cases nor do we have any pay outs on any case/project. We bond and protect every project and we insure our projects (something not many, if any other contractors in our industry do.). The fact that we bond our projects makes us more of a target for litigation. Some customers, seeing that we have insurance, are actually going after some kind of "insurance" claim, rather than any form of tangible damage claim. So far, we have not lost any dispute. We have never had to pay out on a performance bond either.

You are way off base.

A poster started a new thread to ask about the status of a specific federally-funded coach restoration project. Several other posters replied but none offered any actual information about the coach. Instead, the replies were all uniformed speculation and pot shots directed at an individual who I presume is no longer allowed to post on RYPN.

There was even one post in the thread that, IMHO, was extremely stalkerish.