Clark Tucker, Nicole Tucker, and Jackie Tucker of Clark's Geckos- BAD GUYS!!!

Chris,
I did not assign the quote to you, but you are correct, as you used the word "tirade". If you'd like to show me where I paraphrased inaccurately, I'm "all ears" in this case. Point is, it doesn't matter, the paraphrase was accurate, and your analysis of the situation was pretty air-headed. I don't believe you would deny Sarah the right to say "thanks, but no thanks", which she did before the BOI thread. If you had asked a supplier for a refund, for cause, before the product was shipped, and got an obscene phone call from the supplier, and then were told "No", I guess you would just grab your ankles and say "bring it on, here's the vaseline"? Of course not ! It would seem obvious that Sarah did not want to carry a product that she could not vouch for, and that her standards were "higher" than those of many. But your characterization of her motivation to bring a BOI thread neglected to notice things that I believe none of us would accept. I PM'd you a while back suggesting that you give a bit more pause before posting here like some kid with a new toy. In the meantime, half your posts seem as dumb as a stump.

"A few hours later, I received a phone call from the Tuckers which I had to hang up on, due to out of control obscenities and yelling."

Now, has Sarah shown proof that this happened? Or, is this merely something she made up to boister her argument? Could she imagined that phone conversation because she didn't get the response she seeked?

Something to think about.

The point being, anybody can make anything up on the BOI (without) backing it up, and people like you Jim believe it. And I am NOT singling you out, just making a point.
The William Tucker's post's don't reflect that sort of attitude.

Randal,
Sure she could have made it up ! But if it were made up about you, wouldn't you address it in you first reply, and if not then, very soon afterward ? Unfortunatley, phone communications take place, and accounts of them often end up here. Agree with her or not, Sarah presented her case logically, and in order. What seems quite clear is that the refund was not granted until after he BOI thread began, as Sarah alleged two specific phone conversations prior where she made no headway. You say that the Tucker's post "does not reflect that attitude". Well HELLO !! It didn't refute it ! You say that:

Could she imagined that phone conversation because she didn't get the response she seeked?

Something to think about.

Are you stupid ? Are you calling Sarah a liar ? She imagined it ? Perhaps her recollection may differ from the Tucker's, although they passed on the opportunity to address what seems to be the crux of Sarah's posting here. Now you suggest that its "something to think about", that she "imagined" it? What is this, an idiot's contest tonight ? Are timely recollections of phone conversations to be ignored, lest we confuse them with imagination ? Was I dreaming? Moron.

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

Chris,
I PM'd you a while back suggesting that you give a bit more pause before posting here like some kid with a new toy. In the meantime, half your posts seem as dumb as a stump.

Jim,
It seems you failed to take my last post in jest.
That does not surprise me ,as to over half of your posts make you out to be a pontificating blow hard .This would have to be attributed to your age .As you have lost your sense of humor along with your phallic response.Thus making you a pontificated blowhard that doesn't find it funny that he cant get it up .
What do some peole tell you to do,oh yes...have another drink .

Geez people..... the parties involved resolved this issue 3 or 4 days ago.

BOI junky.

I guess my main issue with this is the timeline and one key act of Sarah's that I find pivotal. I want to spell this out to see if everyone agrees with the timeline.

1.) Sarah contacts the Clarks to check on an existing order that has not yet shipped. I am going to make an assumption here that this order has already been mixed and is to ship soon.

2.) A comment is made by the Clarks that, due to unavailability of an existing ingredient, they have substituted a slightly different ingredient which they believe to be so similar as to be an inconsequential change.

3.) Sarah reacts to this statement negatively due to the fact that she was unaware of this substitution and demands a refund and cancellation of her order.

4.) Mr. Clark agrees to the refund (remember this point)

5.) Sarah then posts the following statement on her website

Due to the recent discontinue of one of the ingredients in the Clark's diet and recent product irregularities, we will no longer be selling it. While there is no indication that current batches of Clark's Diet pose any health risk to your animals, the new ingredients have not yet been evaluated. It is our belief that in order to retail a product, we must have complete faith and confidence in it. As this is no longer the case with Clark's Diet, we regret that we must pull the stocks from our website.

We here at Crested Lady hope to bring you a high-quality replacement diet with verified ingredients in the near future. Keep an eye on our site for new developments

(remember this point as well....pivotal!)

6.) The Clark's react very badly to this public statement and, wrongly and no doubt angrily, tell Sarah that they will now not refund for an order I suspect was already prepared.

7.) Sarah sends them an Email threatening to start a thread here on the situation if they don't agree to a refund and then starts one almost immediately.

I think that pretty much sums this one up.

My thoughts are this. The situation was settled after the initial conversation between Sarah and the Clarks. She stated herself that Mr. Clark readily agreed to a refund. The catalyst that started this escalation was the NOT vague and most assuredly negative statement regarding the product that Sarah immediately posted on her website. If I had been the Clark's I would have been pissed as well.

Bottom line...should the Clarks have substituted ingredients without stating that to their distributors? Probably not. However, I do not get the impression that this was duplicity but an honest belief by them that the substitution had a negligible impact and was not really worth mentioning.

However, the fact remains that the posting of the above statement was the trigger that escalated the situation plain and simple. The product could have been simply removed from availability on Sarah's website without calling the quality into question and making veiled statements about "product irregularities". They had willingly agreed to a refund and Sarah was free to stop carrying the product. The negative statement on her website was uncalled for in my opinion and was the main cause of all the ensuing problems

John,
We may disagree with the intent of Sarah's posting in her website, as I find it within acceptable parameters. I cannot disagree with your view that it was "uncalled for", as that is your opinion. Sarah's statement was honest and accurate in her view, and explained to her customers why she was discontinuing the product. She has a right, if not an obligation, to inform her customers as to its discontinuance. Her explanation was not malicious. From what I know of how you conduct your business, while I do not have a problem with your (or the Clark's) not liking Sarah's quote explaining the discontinuance, am I to assume that you would have made a phone call described as being "obscene and yelling", and that you then would have rescinded the agreement to a refund ? Sarah may have escalated things to a level which created more angst with the Tucker's, with her posting in her site, although it is highly debatable as to whether she intended any malice. IMO, she did not. But you ignored that the Tucker's then escalated it again, and your premise is flawed for only assigning escalation to Sarah. Each party is responsible for their own mistakes, and antagonisms, here. Whether Mr. Clark Tucker agreed to a refund is moot, for at the time of the BOI thread starter, he had rescinded the offer with gusto. Remember this point.

The Clarks have not addressed the refund issue here, and I agree if Sarah's account is accurate it looks like they handled it badly. I seriously doubt though that the Clarks, or any honest business person, would have kept Sarah's money forever. So I don't agree that the BOI was necessary to achieve the ultimate capitulation on the Clark's part.

I still contend that this statement;

Due to the recent discontinue of one of the ingredients in the Clark's diet and recent product irregularities, we will no longer be selling it. While there is no indication that current batches of Clark's Diet pose any health risk to your animals, the new ingredients have not yet been evaluated. It is our belief that in order to retail a product, we must have complete faith and confidence in it. As this is no longer the case with Clark's Diet, we regret that we must pull the stocks from our website.

as found on Sarah's website was unnecessary and incendiary. I believe this to be the start of the falling out between these two and probably would have angered many others if it was said about their product.

Ken and John,
I cannot disagree, and in fact would have to give credence to, your beliefs that Sarah's posting in her website was not well received by the Tuckers. I cannot make an argument that any would have received it well. What I do not see is any of you endorsing it as a valid reason to rescind the agreement to refund, which is the reason for the thread. All assumption on my part, but whether it be either of you two or me, I believe we would have had a civil conversation with Sarah, by phone or email, voicing our concerns, and if not able to get Sarah to remove all mention of the product discontinuance, to suggest other language. What I also assume is that none of us would have rescinded the refund offer regardless, the obligation to refund not being a compromise by the Tuckers, but IMO an obligation. The Tuckers revoke it, and that crossed a threshold that very few here would have endorsed, much less wished upon themselves. To suggest that Sarah had further obligation to mediate after being told "no refund" for over $300 is folly. Many BOI threads here involve far lower amounts. Whether Sarah should have waited to see if the Tuckers would change their mind was also not her duty, much less a protocol practiced here.