Naturalist Guy, Kenneth Barnett

Kenny, for what little it may be worth, this made me aware of you in the first place and -in my eyes- it certainly casts you in a positive light.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

Kenny, for what little it may be worth, this made me aware of you in the first place and -in my eyes- it certainly casts you in a positive light.

Same from me, never heard of Kenneth Barnett before I saw this thread. I seldom read good guy posts to be honest - hardly surprised what I find there when I do. I often read the bad guy posts because that's where I really learn about folks. Worry not about the mark next to your name on the thread title. People aren't going to judge you by the title of the thread but rather on how you conduct yourself in responding. If anything, misrepresenting a person's character by painting them an unwarranted bad guy makes the original poster look the fool. As for those who can't read and tell the difference, do you really care what they think? I certainly wouldn't be interested in sending people who can't read a few pages to find out the truth an animal that could grow into a large, potentially dangerous adult..

Mr. Barnett. I read your posts, but honestly did more skimming than actually reading in depth. I would like to respond to things point by point, but quite honestly that would take more time than I care to put into that endeavor. So instead let me ask you a few questions to try to solidify in my mind what exactly your complaint is about. And then make some comments about my position in what is a rather common situation here. That is, that someone thinks that their situation is completely and absolutely unique and therefore worthy of some sort of special consideration, regardless of long standing, tried and true policies.

First off, what exactly was Ms. DeRacho's complaint that she detailed in her opening statement(s) in this thread? WHY did she bother to post here? What was the catalyst that gave her incentive enough to want to make public statements about another person? Did you in any way contribute to her coming to a decision to make a public statement?

When those are answered, have you done any research in the Board Of Inquiry forum to determine that this exhibits an instance that is completely unique and unusual in regards to you and Ms. DeRacho? Have there EVER been others selling wild caught animals here? Has anyone else ever posted a thread in the Board Of Inquiry about them? Has anyone EVER posted a negative post primarily about someone else's private correspondence or attitude towards them?

Secondly, what exactly IS the policy of the Board Of Inquiry that you feel that this thread does not comply with? Maybe there is something about how this forum was set up by me, that is more apparent to you than it is to me. So what have I overlooked that seems glaringly obvious to you?

Thirdly, are you aware that the red "X" was decided upon by Ms. DeRacho and she alone made that symbol appear in the topic line of this thread? For your enlightenment, if needed, no one else had any control over that. So for you to say that the board is at fault for that symbol appearing in relation to YOU, is in my opinion, not sustained by any facts whatsoever. The point of this is that no one on the staff here made any decision whatsoever concerning what symbol would be displayed on this thread. This was NOT a programming decision or management determination, it was a CHOICE made by the person creating the thread.

Fourthly, you made the following statement:

This was not a complaint against a business practice here.

Well, excuse me, but did you or did you not state that you are SELLING those animals that you catch locally? If you did, then how can you claim that the exchange of money for merchandise is NOT a business practice? Certainly we can call it a "practice", can we not, because from what I have read the implication is that you have done this sort of "business transaction" more than once, have you not? Did you or did you not state or imply that the main reason you are HERE on FaunaClassifieds is so you can advertise your animals "for sale"? What would YOU call selling animals online?

It appears that Ms. DeRacho is disturbed over your BUSINESS PRACTICE in regard to those wild caught animals, and from what I gather from her initial post, she did not much appreciate how you responded to her in correspondence. So the question appears to be centered on the fact that you do not believe that Ms. DeRacho had a valid REASON to post a complaint about you. You believe she doesn't. Obviously SHE does. And so she did post such a complaint. Is it a VALID complaint? Beats me. I have never taken on that job to have to make such a determination. The Board of Inquiry was never set up and run with that sort of thing in mind.

Which, of course, brings us to a point that I have had to state more times than I can shake a stick at concerning this forum and my position on it. Which is, I do not, have not, can not, and will not, act as a judge in matters between parties that are brought into the public eye in this forum. The reason, quite simply, is because everything posted is basically hearsay unless I have first hand experience and knowledge of the parties, the statements made, and any evidence about such statements and related practices. The ONLY time I act in the capacity of a judge is in matters related to the RULES of this site and the enforcement of them. Pretty much any registered member can post whatever they like as long as it is within the rules. Which means OPINIONS, as well as stated and/or perceived facts. Everyone reading such posts is free to make their own decision about what it is, or who, they are reading about.

What IS apparently being questioned here is the exercise of someone posting their OPINION in this public forum. And now I am apparently being demanded to be a JUDGE to make a determination of whether or not someone does, in fact, HAVE a right to their opinion remaining being posted here. Or, perhaps, whether I, and site staff acting under my direction, have a RIGHT to allow such postings to remain, regardless of what someone else wishes to take place concerning someone else's words. Which, quite frankly, would fly directly in the face of a long standing and uniformly applied policy of this site, and actually the basis for the Board Of Inquiry's popularity and credibility in this industry. Quite frankly, to even consider making exceptions to that policy would be quite damaging to the welfare and sustainability of this site because of the ensuing lack of credibility that would result. If one thread was deleted, were there others? And WHY were they removed?

As for your apparent claims concerning this thread, was there actually any libel involved? Was anything that was stated that is libelous actually going to be PROVABLY damaging to you? If you are not engaging in a business, what damages are you claiming to be at risk of? If there are damages being sustained, well, as has been implied, then your path is clear, Mr. Barnett. That is something you need to take up in the court room between YOURSELF and the person who made such damaging statements. No one else made such statements, and certainly no one else had any sort of guiding hand influencing what either party has stated. Posts are not pre-approved before being published, so they were not subjected to any sort of litmus test or peer review to determine whether or not they satisfied any sort of qualification to be posted in public. I believe you will find there is substantial case law protecting public message boards such as this from liability for third party posts made in this manner.

Anyway, sorry, posted more than I had intended, but I am sorry that you feel that you and this situation are unique. You are not. It is not. You are not the first person seemingly claiming that something was posted by another party about them that is contrary to the law. If you can prove such a claim in a court of law against the author of such statements, and a court order is issued to force me to remove damaging statements you claim were made against or about you, well, you will have to bring us to that bridge before we can even think about crossing it.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

Kenny, for what little it may be worth, this made me aware of you in the first place and -in my eyes- it certainly casts you in a positive light.

Same here Kenneth, I fully support removing non natives whenever possible, you are doing our eco system a favor....sadly though you are fighting a losing battle. A friend of mine just sent me a picture of knight Anole in Hawaii, can't believe someone would release such an animal but likely group of animals. Too bad we never here of some critically endangered species cropping up where they don't belong.

In alll my communication with Kenneth he has been very professional and he definitely "screened" me for proper experience with large lizards. He also made sure I understand wild Iguanas are not as "tame" as CB Iguanas. It obvious he does what he does out of love for the lizards. I plan on doing with him in a few days.

A word of advise Kenneth. Let this one go. Right now you look pretty good. If you keep on with your current requests and veiled threats of lawsuits, the table will turn on you. MANY people here have had dingleberries start bad guy threads about them. Consider the source, then ponder the support you've gotten here and then decide if you'd rather have members here for or against you.

Anyone who forms an opinion of you solely based on the first post by the OP here is probably not someone you want to be doing business with in the first place.

Buck up Buttercup, it's the way it is on the internet.

Kenneth, I don't know if this will help at all but, here soon, this thread will no longer be on the front page and, eventually, will sink deep into the bowels, of the BOI, where it will most likely not be viewed ... unless someone does a search specifically for you. If someone were to do this, they would most likely take the to read it and will see that you are not a "bad guy".
As an example, there was one time, when I was interested in a pair of snakes, I came to the BOI and searched for the seller. Lo & behold, he had a "bad guy" thread on him. I read it and concluded that the thread/complaint was needlessly done/posted. So, I went ahead with purchasing from this fella. The transaction went flawlessly, with great communication, and I ended up with a great pair of snakes from him.
I know how much it must bother you, to have the red "X", but hope you can take comfort in knowing that this particular thread should not negatively affect you (with customers, etc.). At least not for anyone who does not mind getting a wild caught animal that is an invasive species in your area.
Personally, I do not feel that this thread is BOI worthy but, apparently, the OP does.

*take the time to read it

Ken,

Most readers of the BOI are aware of how the board works. It's not just that a seller has a "bad rating" and therefore they're untrustworthy scum. No! The great part of the BOI is that this community requires proof and evidence, and only then- is it left up to the individual reader to decide how they feel about the particular buyer/seller.

Many trolls (of which it's my personal opinion that this Lori is) are fried into a crisp when they post things that are untrue or completely inadequate. The BOI works. It really does. It's the only fair and unbiased board we have left in the reptile community, mostly due to Rich's policy on not editing or taking sides.

Please know that some of the greats in the industry also have at one point in time that little red X next to their name on this board. The great sellers prove those red marks wrong by their actions and how they handle themselves in the coming time.

There isn't a single person worth their salt who is just going to see this red mark and automatically assume you're a bad guy. Unless they're illiterate. And in that case you don't need them anyways.

Give it time, and I'm pretty sure you'll even get a green "good guy" rating soon too!

Originally Posted by NaturalistGuy

That you can't do this for everyone. But you can do it when a) I am not a BAD GUY and it says I AM. b) That delineation is not inserted by a 3rd party, but by the programming of FAUNA without merit just because anyone may want to and c) Every single thing in life is not black and white. If you want someone to stand as a BAD BUY on FAUNA, then it better be TRUE. Because if is not, then I will be told that- not by FAUNA, but by someone impartial.

Look. A third party tried to use work I did- and posted it on the internet. Their wording at their WARNING page about posts, etc. were a lot more heavy handed than what I read here. And guess what? I won. I got it removed.

I get it all, I read all of Rich's warnings, all of the laws, and I GET IT. Really. But if you feel personally, that it all fits into that ONE NICE NEAT place, and that ALL cases will be laughed at, and deemed to fall under the 3rd party bus, well this is wrong. There are other issues here.

If FAUNA and their legal staff, feel that the "BAD GUY NATURALISTGUY" should stay, and they feel that it is just to leave it up, when in fact it is inflammatory and false, and via all these posts KNOW such, then we'll find out, and maybe I will as well. I may learn something here. Which is what I like to do.

Nothing EVER is solid. EVER. The law, and what is done in each unique circumstance is FLUID. Such is life. No one is crying here. No one is saying "oh woe is me."

I am saying that something needs to be done, if your going to leave a false moniker along side my good name. And that is: REMOVE IT. Simple, clear, clean, easy. Not for everyone, not for every case, but for THIS RARE CASE.

I guess our lovely lady wins after all, because she got what she wanted. Unbridled freedom to slander my name. And by having me leave FAUNA, and to have all of my friends see this entire situation, might in the end, help me if nothing else.

Look forward to seeing you when I'm in town.

Best,
Kenny

Your case is far from rare here! Matter of fact, there are a lot of bad guys with good guy posts starting with a thumbs up moniker that should have a red X! And "our lovely lady" won NOTHING! Except maybe a permanent scar on her own credibility in the eyes of many viewers here. Every post here has been positive on YOUR behalf. Wes is absolutely right. As much as I think you are a good guy, your continuing endeavor is becoming overbaring and taxing to read.