Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

"Coconut Charlie" debate
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12825		 Page 5 of 15
Author:  CROSBYK2 [ Tue May 12, 2009 7:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Well, I got another one
replicant_argent wrote:
Magnum Mikie wrote:

So, are we to assume that Mr. Penaz should be crucified because he has expanded product base and isn't a highly polished website designer?


I don’t look at this as someone being crucified. I look at it as there are some very good people out there who maybe concerned, and I believe rightly so, that there will be students who will get them selves into legal trouble at best and associated with a funeral home at worst because of what they see as an instructor that is offering classes that may be below par. My opinion only.
Author:  joelr [ Tue May 12, 2009 7:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Well, I got another one
Magnum Mikie wrote:
joelr wrote:
And, since I've got a few minutes and the coffee's here, let's look at another Penazian strangeness:
Quote:
Joe and Marcia have just returned from Front Sight Gun Training Institute www.FrontSight.com where we attended another 5-day defensive handgun training class. Ask your potential instructor if he has invested the money and had 10 full days of tactical pistol training in the last year so he can train you at the level we can! No one can claim this but PCSD!

Now, let's add in that endorsement from the Penaz student, Magnum Mikie:
Quote:
We ALL had to "safely" load our own guns (no pre-loading was allowed). Everyone had to hit the target at 7 yards with 10 rds.
It would be unfair to point at the "scare quotes" around "safely". So I will. I'm "sure" that it was utterly "great" and that any "concerns" have been dissolved. :lol:

Beyond that, well, sheesh. Does anybody want to seriously suggest that the training at "Front Sight Gun Training Institute" is so darned good that it enables Penaz to make instructional miracles happen in a ten-round qual?



Joel, I imagine that Joe and Marcia's training at Front Sight Institute would reflect on classes other than PTC.
Ah. Given that, would you not agree that he'd be better off not strongly implying (at the least!) that this training is a reason to choose Mango Joe for permit training? If not, why not?
Author:  DeanC [ Tue May 12, 2009 7:51 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't know Penaz from Adam, but better that he should be ridiculed here among peers (where he has an even chance to defend himself with the worst case outcome being nothing more than hurt feelings), than via a formal complaint to the BCA.
Author:  joelr [ Tue May 12, 2009 8:00 am ]
Post subject: 
DeanC wrote:
I don't know Penaz from Adam, but better that he should be ridiculed here among peers (where he has an even chance to defend himself with the worst case outcome being nothing more than hurt feelings), than via a formal complaint to the BCA.
Well, sure, but, just to be clear (even though I don't think you were suggesting anything contrary to this): I don't make complaints to the BCA. It's their job (hey, they wanted it, and the lege gave it to them in 2005, over my very loud protests) to regulate instructor organizations. Not mine. (Whether or not they do their job -- hell, they were barely able to shut down the no-shoot quals with the laser toys, and it took them a long time -- isn't my problem, either.)

It's not a lack of money. They get that rakeoff from the permit application fees, after all.

But, hell, if they want to hire me to help them clean up the instructor organizations, they can pay me a whole lot of money, upfront, and give me a longterm contact. (I'd have to give up doing carry classes, if they did, after all. Conflicts of interest don't come any clearer.) And I'd want a badge, and a car, too.

And a pony. And a really hot secretary, who looks like Megan Fox.
Author:  joelr [ Tue May 12, 2009 8:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Coconut Charlie" debate
The emphasis, to be clear, is mine, not Crosby's.
CROSBYK2 wrote:
I’m not completely comfortable with posting this as I’m afraid that it might be misconstrued as a personal trashing of Joe. I’m going to post this anyway because I believe it is important for this information to be disseminated. Others can take what I say and make their own decision.

About a year ago I took the class from Joe P. along with 4 friends and my wife whom I convinced to take the class with me. Two of my friends were renewing.

I don’t want to be specific about any one thing, but all of the negatives that I have read here would be things that I would echo.

The outcome of taking the class for my group has not been something to write home about. 2 of the friends never applied for their permit and are planning to retake the class from another instructor. My wife, after much prodding, got her permit but is not comfortable carrying except at the efn breakfast. She would like to take another class as well. The two that were renewing have been giving me the “stink eye” every time the subject comes up.

Ok, so I admit I stepped in the stinky spot big time. I was drawn in to the cheap price and the location. Boy do I feel stupid!!

On a positive note, Joe seems to be a good salesman. He has a real nice dog, lots of nice tools and I like what he has done with his yard. Ok, so I made up the part about the yard.
Thank you for posting that, Crosby. Takes character to admit you made a mistake, and I hope nobody will criticize you for that. I sure won't.

Well, I guess we're done with the implicit nobody who took a class from Penaz ever says it was bad claim.

Good.
Author:  Magnum Mikie [ Tue May 12, 2009 8:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Coconut Charlie" debate
joelr wrote:
Well, I guess we're done with the implicit nobody who took a class from Penaz ever says it was bad claim.
Good.


Outside of the fact that Crosby didn't care for Joe's yard appearance and his friendly Golden Retriever, Crosby wasn't very specific about the negatives of Joe's class. That said, OK, we have one unhappy Penaz student along with a couple friends. I'll admit that Joe's class setting might not be the most comfy, especially those hard, small folding chairs, but the content of the class left me feeling knowledgable and confident about protecting myself and my family if the need arises.

I'm sure other instructors provide more comfy surroundings and comfy chairs, but those surroundings aren't free and are added to the cost of the class.

I wonder how many students of other instructors (maybe even instructors that frequent this forum) have been unhappy for some reason or another, but are fearful of posting their complaints here for fear of being chastised.........well..........kinda like I am right now.

What about the hundreds of Joe's students that keep referring others to Joe......hence keeping his classes full? And why would the Gunstop refer students to Joe Penaz if he was inferior to other instructors?

I have received a few PM's during the past couple days from members of this forum who share my opinions regarding PTC classes, but refuse to post their thoughts................heck, one said intimidation here is over-whelming and prefers to remain a lurker. Lurking is starting to look pretty good to me right about now.
Author:  joelr [ Tue May 12, 2009 8:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Coconut Charlie" debate
Magnum Mikie wrote:
joelr wrote:
Well, I guess we're done with the implicit nobody who took a class from Penaz ever says it was bad claim.
Good.


Outside of the fact that Crosby didn't care for Joe's yard appearance and his friendly Golden Retriever, Crosby wasn't very specific about the negatives of Joe's class.
Does he have to be? I mean, sheesh, you've been suggesting that nobody who has taken Penaz's class thinks it's anything short of being better than sliced bread, and even pointed me at that shining endorsement from Captain Conservative -- "Sure there were a couple things I'd change, but it wasn't any worse than any other course I've taken " -- in support of that, and now a guy steps forward who got penazed and says that he feels like he stepped in dogshit, and you need specifics? Oh, come on.
Quote:
That said, OK, we have one unhappy Penaz student along with a couple friends.
Yes, we do. I don't think those are the only ones, but, heck, that's okay -- it's not my job to quantify the dissatisfaction with his classes, after all.
Quote:
I'll admit that Joe's class setting might not be the most comfy, especially those hard, small folding chairs, but the content of the class left me feeling knowledgable and confident about protecting myself and my family if the need arises.
Well, if your feelings are the alpha and omega of such things, that's pretty great.
Quote:
I'm sure other instructors provide more comfy surroundings and comfy chairs, but those surroundings aren't free and are added to the cost of the class.

I wonder how many students of other instructors (maybe even instructors that frequent this forum) have been unhappy for some reason or another, but are fearful of posting their complaints here for fear of being chastised.........well..........kinda like I am right now.

What about the hundreds of Joe's students that keep referring others to Joe......hence keeping his classes full? And why would the Gunstop refer students to Joe Penaz if he was inferior to other instructors?
I guess you'd be best off taking that up with them.

That said, be careful what you ask for. Was it you or somebody else who asked something to the effect of, Gee, if Penaz isn't a good instructor, why would Andrew Rothman refer to him as a friend, once, in passing? And that led to Andrew saying, among other things:
Quote:
I have also had conversations with Joe about the carry law, and while his heart is definitely in the right place, I understand why he sends his students to others for the tough questions: he doesn't know the answers himself.
Why are you writing that off, too?
Quote:
I have received a few PM's during the past couple days from members of this forum who share my opinions regarding PTC classes, but refuse to post their thoughts................heck, one said intimidation here is over-whelming and prefers to remain a lurker. Lurking is starting to look pretty good to me right about now.
Reminds me of an old song, from the USENET days, written by Jo Walton, of all people:

To the tune of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean":

The Lurkers support me in e-mail
They all think I'm great don't you know.
You posters just don't understand me
But soon you will reap what you sow.

Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

The lurkers support me in e-mail
"So why don't they post?" you all cry
They're scared of your hostile intentions
They just can't be as brave as I.

Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

One day I'll round up all my lurkers
We'll have a newsgroup of our own
Without all this flak from you morons
My lurkers will post round my throne.

Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.
Author:  mrokern [ Tue May 12, 2009 8:49 am ]
Post subject: 
Hey, I've got NO problem standing up for the person who taught me (Andrew).

Not that I've seen any complaints floating out there, but if there were, I'd argue tooth and nail.

We're all adults, stand up and state your views.

Joel isn't going to ban anyone for simply disagreeing with him. It doesn't mean that he won't argue it out, and public fights aren't always comfortable. Mikie, I can't read Joel's mind, but I can tell you that there has been zero talk among the mods about banning or censoring you. Somebody else took it a far more negative and argumentative direction, and he paid for it. You've managed to not go that way thus far, hence you're still welcome here.

-Mark
Author:  johngagemn [ Tue May 12, 2009 8:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Coconut Charlie" debate
Magnum Mikie wrote:
What about the hundreds of Joe's students that keep referring others to Joe......hence keeping his classes full? And why would the Gunstop refer students to Joe Penaz if he was inferior to other instructors?


There are all sorts of crappy businesses that stay afloat on recommendations by people that don't know any better. I see a lot of it in the firefighting industry, it doesn't surprise me that it happens in carry permit instruction as well.
Author:  joelr [ Tue May 12, 2009 9:03 am ]
Post subject: 
mrokern wrote:
Hey, I've got NO problem standing up for the person who taught me (Andrew).

Not that I've seen any complaints floating out there, but if there were, I'd argue tooth and nail.

We're all adults, stand up and state your views.

Joel isn't going to ban anyone for simply disagreeing with him. It doesn't mean that he won't argue it out, and public fights aren't always comfortable. Mikie, I can't read Joel's mind, but I can tell you that there has been zero talk among the mods about banning or censoring you. Somebody else took it a far more negative and argumentative direction, and he paid for it. You've managed to not go that way thus far, hence you're still welcome here.

-Mark
Site owner hat firmly on: Magnum Mikie will not be banned or censored for disagreeing with me. He, like anybody else, might run into that if he violates the Rules, including Rule Zero, but he hasn't come close to that, to date, and there has been no discussion I am aware of, anywhere, of banning him. And that includes inside my own head.

[ETA: Update -- Mikie finally did push things far enough that he got a one-week timeout. From private email, he's apparently of the ignorant opinion that it was for disagreeing with me. That's okay; he's allowed to be ignorant.

[The offer stands, though: after his turn in the timeout chair, if he can talk a moderator or admin -- or me -- into turning his privileges on, he'll be allowed back in. If, on the other hand, he decides to stay away, I'll miss him only a little. I think the guy really means well, but he made a bad decision when he picked his carry permit instructor, and has a neurotic need to justify it.]
Author:  Jeremiah [ Tue May 12, 2009 9:08 am ]
Post subject: 
joelr wrote:
Site owner hat firmly on: Magnum Mikie will not be banned or censored for disagreeing with me. He, like anybody else, might run into that if he violates the Rules, including Rule Zero, but he hasn't come close to that, to date, and there has been no discussion I am aware of, anywhere, of banning him. And that includes inside my own head.


None of the voices even suggested it? :wink:
Author:  replicant_argent [ Tue May 12, 2009 9:14 am ]
Post subject: 
Jeremiah wrote:
joelr wrote:
Site owner hat firmly on: Magnum Mikie will not be banned or censored for disagreeing with me. He, like anybody else, might run into that if he violates the Rules, including Rule Zero, but he hasn't come close to that, to date, and there has been no discussion I am aware of, anywhere, of banning him. And that includes inside my own head.


None of the voices even suggested it? :wink:

It could be that they were conspiring when Joel left the head for a cup of coffee.

Never trust the inhabitants of your head when you aren't there to catch them in their diabolical plans.
Author:  joelr [ Tue May 12, 2009 9:15 am ]
Post subject: 
Jeremiah wrote:
joelr wrote:
Site owner hat firmly on: Magnum Mikie will not be banned or censored for disagreeing with me. He, like anybody else, might run into that if he violates the Rules, including Rule Zero, but he hasn't come close to that, to date, and there has been no discussion I am aware of, anywhere, of banning him. And that includes inside my own head.


None of the voices even suggested it? :wink:
Nah. I even ran it as a Walter and Ellegon dialogue . . .

"Sheesh. This guy isn't doing that Penaz clown a whole lot of favors."

*I don't understand humans, some times, and -- *

"Most of the time."

* -- and I know you and I love you, Walter, really I do, but you seem to spend half your life thinking with your penis, and the other half with your heart, and the other half with your head, and -- *

"Too many halves."

*Shhh. My point is that a lot of what you humans do doesn't make sense, and -- *

"You're not going to say that about JR, are you? Last time you make some comment about him that he didn't like, he had you shot down out of the sky."

*Post hoc ergo propter hoc. He did it for the plot, not because he was irritated with me. If he acted out every time he got irritated with you, you'd lose a part of your anatomy I think your wife has told you she's fond of.*

"There is that."
Author:  MTinMN [ Tue May 12, 2009 11:08 am ]
Post subject: 
I will also state that I took my class from Joe over a year ago.

I felt then, and continue to feel, that the training was adequate and the seats were hard.

I agree that Joe's website is amateurish.

I think the behavior of some people on this forum w/r/t Joe is juvenile.
Author:  joelr [ Tue May 12, 2009 11:52 am ]
Post subject: 
MTinMN wrote:
I will also state that I took my class from Joe over a year ago.

I felt then, and continue to feel, that the training was adequate and the seats were hard.

I agree that Joe's website is amateurish.

I think the behavior of some people on this forum w/r/t Joe is juvenile.
That's okay -- all of that. Particularly the hard seats. Thanks for piping up.
Page 5 of 15 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/