ed clark- liar, theif, bad guy- will you answer questions NOW?

Originally Posted by kmurphy

I agree Dan. My opinion is that the name caller has a weak argument and feels the need to bolster it by name calling. Often it is just to get a reaction from the subject of the post and usually doesn't do any good except add a half dozen off topic posts to the thread.

A weak argument? why not ask Emily and Daniel about this weak argument? I'm sure that they'd agree that the argument against Ed being a standup guy is weak, don't you?

I don't think that kmurphy was insinuating that their case was without merit - more that the name calling detracts from their argument, reducing it to a lower level.
Then again...Emily and Daniel weren't the one's calling names, now were they?

I don't think that kmurphy was insinuating that their case was without merit - more that the name calling detracts from their argument, reducing it to a lower level.

Thanks Harald, that's correct. I wasn't speaking of any particular thread. I was speaking about any post, on any thread, where the writer feels the need to resort to name calling. If your point is sound then the name calling is counter productive IMO.

Originally Posted by cka

I can kinda understand confusing ch ball pythons with something you've bred yourself, especially if you are moving lots of different bp's. Not excusing it, but I can see it. Thats a big "benefit of a doubt" there too. LOTS of people "drop ship" or "resell" for other folks, I don't see where he should castigated for it (if he is), except for the misrepresentation.

I really, really didn't want to comment on any of this again, but there's something I feel needs some clarification- not saying that Chris got it wrong, just that there's a situation that's been colored very strongly in a way that doesn't make much sense to me.

Emily contacted Ed and told him that some animals she bought from him almost a year earlier had tested postive for parasites after a recent fecal. Ed responds indicating that he'd check his records to see what he sold her.

That was thrown out there as an argument that he misrepresented the animals he sold to her, but the way I read it at the time and the way that it would most reasonabally be interpreted- even with my distaste for the guy and some of the things he has done- is that he didn't remember the details of an individual sale and was going to try and figure it out. Some people saw this as evidence that he lied when he told her he was selling CB animals, but I find it much more likely that he just doesn't remember the name or email address of every one of the hundreds of customers he has in a given year.

Emily's response contained a direct... threat is the only word I can really use... of a BOI thread, "You make a post saying your animals are filthy (because she had it for ten months without noticing a problem) or [i]I[/] will." Then things all got very ugly very fast and it became impossible to sort out what was factual and what was not; there was no possible way to wade through it all and know for certain, with no possible room for any doubt or error, if Ed should have been condemned or exhonerated of each individual accusation of wrongdoing.

Originally Posted by marcus q

Sometimes being right isn't the best thing,and Sammy,unfortunately you are right on point in your summation of all this.As Cat surmised,you still owe it to yourself and your customer to do the right thing,

Oh I will never stop doing right by people. That is just who I am as a person. How I am built. I dont even have a choice in the matter really.

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

Emily's response contained a direct... threat is the only word I can really use... of a BOI thread, "You make a post saying your animals are filthy (because she had it for ten months without noticing a problem) or [i]I[/] will."

That is certainly one way of interpreting it.

If I remember correctly Emily just wanted Ed to contact his customers so they could get their animals checked too.

Granted she may have been a bit premature in her request, but that is neither here nor there.

No doubt Sammy you will.That was for the people that might see others as a means to an end,instead of them as an integral part of the customer/business relationship..

Originally Posted by shrap

That is certainly one way of interpreting it.

If I remember correctly Emily just wanted Ed to contact his customers so they could get their animals checked too.

Granted she may have been a bit premature in her request, but that is neither here nor there.

i hope that you will take the initiative to issue a public alert, however, should you choose not to do so, i will post a warning so that people can take the appropriate action.

I'm not sure how someone can read that as anything other than a threat or an ultimatum. I believe the whole... premature... aspect is fairly central to the entire subject; she had an extremely poor grasp of parasite life cycles and transmission vectors and her ultimatum demanded a specific public action on his part, rather than discussing an appropriate course of action.

If nothing else though, I suppose that thread serves as an example of why it's important to have all pertinant information ordered and well presented when starting a thread. I was constantly reminded of a quote from a movie... "I've seen monkey shit fights at the zoo that were more organized than this." (Yeah yeah, it's profanity- I understand and I apologize, I just don't feel right paraphrasing direct quotations)

I somewhat remember the original thread on Ed, but can someone refresh my memory on what the CHARGES are against Ed?

Dave

DAvid
See Page #1 for full charges. This reminds me of .......

If Pete and Repete were sitting on a fence and Pete fell off....who's left