Ty park/ ty lizards FL

Originally Posted by DNAexotics

David your dismissal of my opinion is your issue, and your attitude is indicative of why this discussion moot. Also do t try to tell me what I should or shouldn't post and try to belittle my opinion. Good day

Alexander, I enjoyed your well reasoned analysis. Probably some of the best I have read in this thread. I say keep it coming.

Originally Posted by DNAexotics

David this is supposed to be an open forum for discussion, I find it odd that with all the speculation that has gone on as to what is or what is not, you are only taking issue with mine since it doesn't align with yours.

Originally Posted by DNAexotics

David your dismissal of my opinion is your issue, and your attitude is indicative of why this discussion moot. Also do t try to tell me what I should or shouldn't post and try to belittle my opinion. Good day

Well put.

David, can you please show me where Andrew expresses support for Ty Park or warrants your snarky responses?

Just curious. I thought the post you blasted him for was unbiased and thoughtful, regardless of litigious soundness.

Originally Posted by DNAexotics

Allison if you look up mass raffle laws the statute pops right up and it seems pretty clear to me from what I read. There's a post I made way back referencing the refusal, as i can see it interpreted as well.

So I just went through the mass raffle/ Bazaar laws and while it may be difficult to host a raffle in mass( which is moot as it was not held in mass.). There are no laws about any one entering one that I can find.so please show me where you found that a mass resident can't enter a raffle as I can't find it.

Originally Posted by MikeCurtin

Well put.

David, can you please show me where Andrew expresses support for Ty Park or warrants your snarky responses?

Just curious. I thought the post you blasted him for was unbiased and thoughtful, regardless of litigious soundness.

When someone is literally fabricating things about someone in order to make them look better (claiming that Ty is a non-profit entity) when others have found zero evidence of that, and he has provided zero proof to back up those claims it shows an inherent bias towards the party they are making claims for (ty in this case).

If I were a judge, I need not look past the initial post here. Ty's exact words..."how many of you would be interested if "I" ran an online raffle... He solicited people for money, stated the terms implicating himself as sole money taker and prize giver. Open and shut. He amplified the terms. He screwed the OP. Yes, it is that simple.

It really seems like Andrew's modus operandi was to attempt to make Ty look good, without offering any proof. Stating something that is untrue and calling it an "opinion" is a guise used by those who do not have a grasp of the truth and wish to twist perception in their favor.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The one and only post Ty Park made on this thread will be the biggest contributor to his undoing. Not what anyone else has said; not what Michelle has said against him; not even this massively long thread.

His one post was enough, because that one post said outright that he deliberately did not tell Michelle what he was sending her as a 'test.' I cannot see any jury trial appreciating that obvious manipulation attempt, whatever else notwithstanding.

He admitted, outright, that he didn't tell her what he was sending her on purpose.

I agree with Rich: The best thing to do would be to send her either the money or the tegu and be done with the whole thing. Ty's got a lot of balls in the air and unlike some, I don't think he's a bad guy. I think he's handled this situation horribly, though, and I do think that how you handle a bad situation is - at the end of the day - more reflective on you than what good you do.

Ty could end this for everyone. Probably not come out smelling like roses, but he could still put a stop to it. I don't understand why he's fighting this so hard. I do understand why Michelle is - but I feel like in his case it's probably a matter of pride. Pride always cometh before a fall.

Well said Jamie, I hate to see this thread turn into one of those argumentative back and forths that end up muddying the original issue more than clarifying. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, and we shouldn't be berating anyone for sharing theirs if it's done if a respectful way.

I still don't see anything backing your statements though Andrew? From my understanding, typically the delivery address of an order dictates the freight on board location, determining where the vendor is responsible for the order to. This also determines the tax rate/receiver. I don't know how this works in raffles, that's for sure, but since Ty (nor the charity) required Michelle provide her address prior to buying her tickets, then how can anyone determine what state her involvement would fall under? Unless he had delivered the Tegu of course, which he didn't, so that's a moot point.

For example, how do they even know she was in Mass. at the time she made the donation? Does simply having a legal address in a particular state mean every transaction you enter in to is governed by your home state?

I'm not trying to say my understanding is right, I'm just not seeing facts that convince me it's wrong. I am open to any sources you can provide that will convince me otherwise though. I'd much rather be accurate than right

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

If I were a judge, I need not look past the initial post here. Ty's exact words..."how many of you would be interested if "I" ran an online raffle... He solicited people for money, stated the terms implicating himself as sole money taker and prize giver. Open and shut. He amplified the terms. He screwed the OP. Yes, it is that simple.

Alexander, I enjoyed your well reasoned analysis. Probably some of the best I have read in this thread. I say keep it coming.

Agree. Just try to ignore the attacks, and the people who they come from. They want attention, do not give them any.
Michelle, I understand your perspective. No you did NOT call him a liar or scamy

If you're trying to help educate future buyers in similar circumstances as to how their behavior, even when in the right, can push a salvageable transaction sour, then I suppose I understand... but I still don't see any upside for you to attach that advice and your good name to this thread and Ty Park.

Exactly. I do not think either party handled this situation correctly, Ty was the one who needed to perform, and Michelle disrespected him by calling him out, and she even got Ty to offer up a prize he wanted to keep, but left an option open for her to get nothing.

In his mind he was not obligated to send any further information or pictures. I think the $3000 was not at all what he wanted to give anyone. He wanted to give a $3000 (or $5000) tegu. What is the write off on $3000 cash? If Michelle had been more respectful, She would have something right now. Some people feel that Michelle had every right to be doubtful, and ask for pictures etc...it did not serve her very well.

AllisonLeigh, how would you feel about someone who called you dishonest or shady?