Ty park/ ty lizards FL

Originally Posted by caffeinecynic

Ty sends Michelle $1,500.00 (a figure that satisfies neither party). They both drop any further litigation like Tim suggested.

NFW should this be acceptable !! This isn't 'in the middle' it's Michelle gets screwed and Parks and his cronies walking away laughing at the whole thing ! BS !!!!!

Even 3 grand or the lizard, she is still out $$$ due to Parks arrogant, greedy and unprofessional behavior. You want to REWARD him for that ??

To make it fair, give her the $3000. AND the lizard ... or the lizard and what she's spent on an attorney due to his outlaw-wannabe behavior. He started this s*** , not her.

This was a raffle. He didn't sell anything. If you run a raffle for a live animal, I fail to see how you really give two craps of where the animal is going to wind up. If you really did, you wouldn't do this via raffle. It would be direct sale where you ask whatever questions to the prospective buyer you like and then decide if said animal would be a good fit. Not saying Ty does or doesn't care about his Tegu's, but I just don't see that as a valid argument with a raffle no matter how you try and spin it.

As for the raffle itself, how does this work? Anyone in the know on what I am about to ask below?

If you run a raffle, you physically collect money. It is not like an auction where you can cancel it and no one is out any money. In a raffle, he physically has everyone's money. So you draw a winner, and for whatever reason, do not aware said winner of the prize. Don't you still have to go back to the ticket bin and pull another winner? Wouldn't everyone who bought a raffle ticket be pretty upset, think this was all a hoax, he had no intention of every awarding anything, I want my money back! Couldn't each and every ticket purchaser sue him? And they would be awarded more than the raffle ticket price with court costs, etc. I doubt they would become rich, but it would be worth their time and effort to go after the person running the raffle.

Not only didn't he do that, but he just re-ran another raffle again. And what baffles me is that even more people bought tickets. Seems crazy they would take that risk but whatever. I don't think I saw anywhere yet that said all the current ticket holders were just moved over to the new raffle and thereby still had a shot to win the prize they bought a ticket for. Did that happen? Does that even have to happen or can you just run a raffle, never actually award a prize and keep the money. No matter what the reason is. I see a pretty good get rich quick scheme if so.

Originally Posted by RobertHume

I don't believe Ty Park is an evil/unethical tegu farmer cackling away on his Scrooge McDuck money out to screw the next charity raffle winner. He got annoyed by Michelle's attitude and I understand perfectly where he is coming from.

I believe Michelle deserved to get the tegu she technically won. I wish you the best, but I wouldn't be surprised if you lost either. You've stalked and gathered quite a bit of "information" from Ty's facebook in order to dampen his reputation. And now he's suing you for it. You may have the favor of some "people" (a rather charitable term by the way) who are constantly abusing the BOI for not what it was unintended, but rather as an emotional outlet for some blatant issues and toxicity in their lives (ie. DavidBeard), but this is America where a juridical system is in place so we'll have to let the court decide.



Hypocritical and ironic indeed. Try seeking some sunlight.

Sorry Robert, I seem to have upset you somehow in my posts here.....you must have me confused with someone who cares, however. I'm no longer taking applications to my fan club, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by JimM

NFW should this be acceptable !! This isn't 'in the middle' it's Michelle gets screwed and Parks and his cronies walking away laughing at the whole thing ! BS !!!!!

Even 3 grand or the lizard, she is still out $$$ due to Parks arrogant, greedy and unprofessional behavior. You want to REWARD him for that ??

To make it fair, give her the $3000. AND the lizard ... or the lizard and what she's spent on an attorney due to his outlaw-wannabe behavior. He started this s*** , not her.

Ty gave up his numerous opportunities to make things right, no way is he getting a short cut out of this. He made his bed, now he's trying to avoid sleeping in it.

7k plus attorneys fees. I could get that all day long.

Michelle YGPM

Originally Posted by JimM

NFW should this be acceptable !!...
To make it fair,

Originally Posted by DavidBeard

no way is he getting a short cut out of this. He made his bed, now he's trying to avoid sleeping in it.

Says who? The only two people that can determine it's acceptability are Michelle and Ty. A negotiation/compromise to "end" this is not about our feelings or what we, as outside observers, think is 100% "fair". Compromise is surrendering/giving up on the idea that you are going to get 100% of what you originally wanted in the first place. You compromise because you are at a stalemate, you are going to lose, or the cost of going forward out ways the benefit of continuing down your desired path.

If you want your opponent to move in your direction, you need to give him/her a reason to do so. Trying to only "stick it to the man" is not the art of compromise. In fact, how has that strategy worked out thus far for either party? If neither party feels they have reached that point, then by all means keep going for the "win" versus "ending" it.

"Live Breaking News: This just in, two people in America have been arguing over a lizard for months. In other less important news, world stock markets crash, terrorists attack, war rages, pandemics spread and your health care provider just dropped you, sorry. Enough about that, back to that pivotal lizard argument..."

Originally Posted by AllisonLeigh

I'm sorry, I just don't see where Michelle was anything out of the norm. If you guys consider Michelle difficult, you must have had some amazing luck with customers as over the years and years I've dealt with vendors and customers Michelle doesn't come off as a "problem customer" to me at all. She asked a lot of questions, I've answered literally 1000s of pm's from the same "window looking" customer, who didn't even end up buying anything and I still don't see that as the customer being difficult. I don't see why people are so offended by her behavior! A lot of women can't help but apologise for asking questions (during my negotiating training it was something that was brought up time and time again for us to fight to avoid). Michelle asked questions and didn't apologise for asking them, that seems to be what everyone is so offended by?

As far as I'm concerned, Ty not liking Michelle's tone should have as much bearing on this case as Michelle not liking Ty's shoes would. ie. It doesn't matter.

It's not like Ty's messages to her are flowery and sweet and she's aggressive back! He's short, and curt, and doesn't seem to think she's worth his time. So why are we so focused on the fact that Michelle questioning him on something? How often do newbies get chastised on this forum for NOT asking pertinent questions when buying an animal??

My suggestion for resolution is that Ty give Michelle the 3000$ she is owed as per the raffle terms. He missed the deadline for delivery, and has brought his honesty into question when he posted that he could have just given her one he didn't produce and not said anything. I would love to see both parties walk away from this without a bunch of heartache, but I think the continual blaming of Michelle's behavior is coming off (I really hate to say it but...) sexist. I've attempted to avoid the feeling every time it snuck in, but this needing Michelle to be sugary sweet sounds like 1950s house wife crap. Michelle had questions, she asked them... why is everyone so worked up over that?

To address this: I can see where she could've rubbed him wrong, because of how she worded things - in particular, the second she called him 'shady'.

I'm 100% on Michelle's side: she got completely mistreated. I can see why Ty might dislike her and not want to deal with her, because when you're dealing with a confrontation, the second you start implying someone is less than ethical, you do run the risk of them having a defensive reaction.

Bear in mind: I don't DISAGREE with her. Her questions are not where I draw my issue with her behavior, not at all, I've said time and again I think they are reasonable questions any person would ask and that absolutely has not changed. But from the other side of the spectrum, I can see how the second she started name calling, someone might want to end interactions.

I feel Ty handled it wrong, and at the end of the day, he let his knee jerk response rule how he treated her and that is not how he should have behaved.

To me, the black and white is this:

- Michelle won and should have received her prize. She did not.

The grey is this:

- Ty probably felt insulted by her behavior, something that I think many people can relate to

The grey is irrelevant. The black and white is what should have been addressed and was not, IMO.

Originally Posted by JimM

NFW should this be acceptable !! This isn't 'in the middle' it's Michelle gets screwed and Parks and his cronies walking away laughing at the whole thing ! BS !!!!!

Even 3 grand or the lizard, she is still out $$$ due to Parks arrogant, greedy and unprofessional behavior. You want to REWARD him for that ??

To make it fair, give her the $3000. AND the lizard ... or the lizard and what she's spent on an attorney due to his outlaw-wannabe behavior. He started this s*** , not her.

I have no idea why your post quoted me, but I didn't suggest that - I think that was Robert Walker. Just so you know.

Originally Posted by caffeinecynic

To address this: I can see where she could've rubbed him wrong, because of how she worded things - in particular, the second she called him 'shady'.

Everyone that has played devil's advocate or supported Ty's stance has pointed out Michelle's "tone" as the cause of Ty's defaulting on his agreement. I realize you're not arguing she shouldn't get her prize, but even as an uninvolved party I'm finding the victim blaming is getting a bit much. Michelle is already dealing with being ripped off, does she have to hear over and over again that it's her fault for not pandering to him? He was annoyed she questioned him when he was unclear and vague (and he even admitted he was doing it on purpose to test her) but if someone is so sensitive to being called shady then they shouldn't act shady imo.

I don't think we're disagreeing, I just don't see Ty's being offended as having any weight in the case, even if he seems to think it does. There was no "As long as I like you" clause, therefore... moot However, I'm thinking that clause might end up added to his T&Cs after this haha

Originally Posted by AllisonLeigh

Everyone that has played devil's advocate or supported Ty's stance has pointed out Michelle's "tone" as the cause of Ty's defaulting on his agreement. I realize you're not arguing she shouldn't get her prize, but even as an uninvolved party I'm finding the victim blaming is getting a bit much. Michelle is already dealing with being ripped off, does she have to hear over and over again that it's her fault for not pandering to him? He was annoyed she questioned him when he was unclear and vague (and he even admitted he was doing it on purpose to test her) but if someone is so sensitive to being called shady then they shouldn't act shady imo.

I don't think we're disagreeing, I just don't see Ty's being offended as having any weight in the case, even if he seems to think it does. There was no "As long as I like you" clause, therefore... moot However, I'm thinking that clause might end up added to his T&Cs after this haha

I agree that him being offended has 0 relevance. Whether I think he has a right to be offended or not doesn't matter at all. I work in customer service and I can tell you beyond a shadow of doubt that my customers have made me mad more times than I can count, but that doesn't mean I stop doing my job. It means I do my job, and then when they're safely out of earshot, I quietly imagine them stepping on a Lego.

I feel he let his emotional reaction rule how he behaved and that is completely unacceptable, REGARDLESS of whether that emotional reaction is justifiable or not. So I think we agree haha