FRESH WC PANTHERS ~ Ankaramy~ Blue Bar Ambilobe ~ Red Bar Ambilobe ~

The evidence in long version of stolen Mitsios that was asked for:

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...ad.php?t=62417

Mental image: A foot, a gigantic, Bigfoot-ish foot parking itself.... in Chris Anderson's and maybe even a couple other's mouth.

-Matt

Not quite sure why I'd be sticking my foot in my mouth, I seem to remember saying that I knew nothing about the situation. I also reacall that I called on you to post evidence, not just try to stir up trouble without posting any basis and I went on to show that this is a trend of yours. I still maintain that before you or anyone else starts trying to cause trouble, the facts should be in order and posted.

Looks like a long read ahead, better get started.

Chris

Ah Chris, that foot must be coming out your rear by now. I am suprised to not see you trying to defend your buddies Lane and Johnny boy anymore. I guess you are running for the life boats at this point but I guess that is to be expected from someone that lacks a spine. I guess you must be fuming still that you basically have shown yourself to be a liar too - how comforting that all these friends: Lane Gergely, John Lucas and Chris "Ulterior Motive Man" Anderson have such similar habits. Since you are a stickler for proof, I mean you must have been pretty suprised to find out that Dennis Scott told me about your authoring of that thread you got John to post a while ago on the BOI - and also that he told me of your fits trying to find out how I figured that little tid-bit out which was pretty sweet since you were trying to deny it to me via email at the same time he was telling me. You must be equally upset with yourself now too that you posted that exchange between you and I when I called you out on that fact and you tried to deny it as if you are above that kind of stuff - essentially showing yourself to be a liar to the public. I bet at this point you wish you could delete that post. Poor Chrissy, for a guy that is supposed to be filled with integrity you sure are full of crap.

How cute~

Matt

And the prize for least spine goes to.... Chris Anderson, his prize: a picture of a Parson's that is probably almost as old he is.

Again I have to ask, what are you hoping to accomplish by this?

Obviously you have a problem with Chris, we get it. You also have a problem with John, Lane and any other number of people out there. But the continuing banter, with yourself, isn't doing any good to anyone. I've read the thread about the mitsios and quite honestly there isn't a person involved in that thread that has conducted themselves as an adult, let alone a professional. I can't speak for Chris, but it's quite possible that the reason he hasn't gotten himself involved is the same reason any number of people haven't. It doesn't have anything to do with the majority of them. The way I see it Lane, Shelly, John and David are invloved and have something to gain or lose because of this.

I honestly couldn't care less about the situation.

The fact of the matter is that two people entered into a business relationship with no legal documentation. When the dollar signs appeared before their eyes friendship went away. If documents had been signed there would be no discussion. However, relying on "friendship" was the path that was chosen and obviously that didn't work.

The people involved in that thread have shown their true character. Outside parties didn't really need to get involved as all it ended up being is a continuation of the same thing, the "panther wars". And parties that were not involved didn't need to be brought into it either, no matter what the perceived relationship is.

I really wish that everyone involved could take a step back, remove themselves from the situation and realize that picture that it paints of everyone involved is not a positive one.

Matt,

I've stayed out of that thread because the only thing I would add would be a link to a sample contract Jason posted on the database to conduct a breeding loan under a signed agreement which ultimately, both parties were stupid to enter into the deal without. Furthermore, I have nothing invested with the parties involved or in the situation at hand so I have nothing to defend. Additionally, you can point the finger at me for writing that other thread as much as you want, the bottom line is the two situations are unrelated. Just because I found your actions, as laid out in that thread, to be appauling and posted stating I felt that way, doesn't mean I have anything to do with the actions of others involved in the thread and absolutely doesn't mean there is anymore reason why I should be affiliated with any of their business endevors, good or bad, than i should be with yours. What each side does in their business is their issue and agreeing or disagreeing with either party at some point down the line doesn't have any affect in changing that ultimately, I have nothing to do with their actions. As a result, your accusations and claimed affiliation of myself with the issue in that thread is bogus. Finally, I have no regrets about posting that email exchange, it showed you for what you are and you are doing an excellent job doing the same thing publicly, looking like a fool. Enjoy your little pissing match, I have nothing and want nothing to do with it.

Chris

But Jason and Chris,
I differ with some of your conclusions. Let me state right here that I do not approve of the above thread, and thought it the perfect example of simple feuding. That both of you may choose to not post in the current BOI thread about Lane and Shelley is also your prerogative. But to say it is just between them, and is nothing more than two ex-friends without a contract is a bit hard to swallow, especially with the lack of support for that view expressed by those in the thread for anything close to your conclusions. But it is an opinion, like mine and all of the rest. An underlying issue here, that is obvious to many, is Lane's paritcipation in a thread in September, co-authored by Chris, attacking the business ethics of others ... with Chris specifically naming me. And besides my non-involvement explained then, I would like to add that no one ever even implied the theft or misunderstanding over even $1, much less thousands. Additionally, it wrankles a few of us that Chris is the claimed author of the original post there by John. Its more than heresay at this point, because the specific individuals have been named, and not refuted. In the end, it is all chump change. To those who have been on the receiving end of some of Chris' mudslinging attacks in the BOI, we are a bit chagrined by the attitude displayed above. Agreed, there's a view that maybe you don't have a dog in this hunt. I am sure that you don't condone Lane's actions, or the hypocricy of John. But by the same measure, you didn't have a dog in the other hunt either, and seemed to be involved because "you did not approve" of the silliness of others. The issue between Lane and Shelley is not simple feuding, and sorry to inform you of this, but pointing out that someone(s) who have inaccurately impugned the integrity of myself and others, when in-fact have none of their own, seems a worldly accepted means of appealing to the public's common sense. Going back to the September thread, I would say it is equivelent to the same level of validity used by Chris and others to go after Ivan and Matt and I, and I was guilty by association in the eyes of Chris! It may seem like mundane mud-slinging to you, but neither Lane nor John ever retracted their false allegations about me then, and now Lane is up to her neck in an issue that reeks of gutter ethics, and John looks a bit silly too.

As I have mentioned in emails to you Chris, and in public forum, I have to commend you for the work with the E-Zine. But I also think it is you who pulled my name into the gutter level of the BOI back in September. You signed your name to it, and supported it in later posts. Matt may have mentioned me in his ad, and gotten carried away, but there was no mud in that ad, and in fact not the mention of any other competitive entity. But it was apparently the last straw in a feud, and you jumped right in! I did not approve of the ad, but Chris showed none of the standards then which he now claims to embrace. Note too Chris, that no one has put your name into a BOI header "Chris Anderson, questionable ethics", much less text, although there are references, which I admit are obviously attempts to ask people to evaluate what appears to many as an overt double standard on your part. Some of us saw the Lane thread as a great opportuntiy to step up to the plate and support sound business ethics .... but apparently the double standard rises again. For if this is an issue just for Lane and Shelley, then whomever the September BOI feud was between, I just don't see where you had a claim to be involved, but that didn't stop you! And maybe it all comes back to the purpose of the BOI, which is to have a public forum to let it fly, valid and otherwise. On those grounds, you had every reason to let it rip in September, albeit your facts were a little off. Chris, it seems that you want it both ways. That you chose to join Lane in questioning the business ethics of others in September, just as if I had chosen Matt and Ivan as business partners, which they are not, is valid involvement should any of those entities compromise themselves, especially in a forum such as this, and especially of they attack the integrity of others. In essence, you lent your name to Lane which boosted her credibility in an ethics attack on others, and you have not retracted it in this current BOI thread. Just as was mentioned in September, the silence is deafening, and therefor indicates a degree of complicity or guilt? Sounds silly, but its only the same standard that you used then.

For the record, you did a very weak job of retracting your allegations against me in September, while Vince was much more forthcoming. You lacked no effort in making the charges, and even spent some time pursuing them. I am grateful for the corners of some of these forums where you acknowledge that you realize that I had no involvement, but I think it rates with the old adage "day late and a dollar short".

And I'll state it all again right here: Many of the past attacks in this and other forums aimed at Vince and John and Chris and Lane have been petty at best (although there now appears to be a bit of truth to Lane, and John's getting dirty). I disapprove of all of the cheap shots, especially when done by an alias. I know that you Chris, and Vince, have had others pull you into it at times, but you have also jumped in voluntarily before as well. I think that the September thread shows that I also know how it feels to be pulled in to the mud... and you signed it Chris. We all make mistakes. John and Lane and their minions seem to enjoy the mud, and now its biting back at them pretty good. For the record, I do have on-going projects with both Matt and Ivan and others, and as an LLC, I have shareholders, but it is my brother Patrick and I who run the business, and own the overwhelming controlling stock. Hope that the E-Zine continues well. I often refer people to it. Happy hunting.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC

Jim,

First of all, thank you for a reply that was polite. In regards to the September thread and my view...

I was not involved in that thread either. I felt the same way about it as I do the current one. I feel that there are two camps of panther breeders, some of which are quite obviously selling chameleons that they did not personally breed and keep. I have no problem with that as long as they as sold as such (which they don't seem to be in most cases).

But the current issue, in my eyes, is just as simple as I explained it. A signed agreement, notarized and filed would have elminated all issues. Surely you, as an LLC, understand the liability aspect of a verbal agreement with such high dollar animals changing hands. The breeding agreement that I had drawn up was for animals worth far less than the chams in question yet I still hired an attorney to review and approve this document.

I will not disagree that the behavior shown by Lane and John is questionable. But I can't speak much higher for the behavior of the other parties involved either, which is another reason why I chose not to involve myself.

I cannot speak for Chris on this or any other issue but the continual harassment by Matt has me puzzled and I am sure it is getting quite old for Chris.

But the current issue, in my eyes, is just as simple as I explained it. A signed agreement, notarized and filed would have elminated all issues.

A person lying about the original verbal agreement would lie about anything to make that money. They would lie about how many eggs where laid, how many animals were sold, how many eggs hatched (there is just so much that cannot be monitored by both sides in a long distance business arrangement). A partnership between two groups requires a large level of trust, as there are many ways around contracts and written agreements. No matter which if any side you take on the thread that is happening on the BOI, having the information to know who to trust out there in the business world is what the BOI is about. (Tried to write this as more of a hypothetical situation than trying to point fingers).

Again, I agree with you Dan. Every time I have entered into a breeding arrangement it has been with individuals that I trust completely. And I would never rely on a piece of paper alone.

However a signed and notarized agreement would have at the very least provided some recourse for legal action should it be necessary. A verbal agreement provides very little, if any, protection.

The "two camps" thing left a very bad taste in my mouth back in September, when I was as shocked as anyone to see my name up in the lights on the BOI. I just re-read that entire thread, pulling some of the more classic quotes, and tucking them away. I find it most unfortunate to have to get dirty here myself, but these very entities in the current BOI thread had no problem attacking me, in a far larger forum than others had bad-mouthed them, back in September. Chris included .... and his alleged involvement in the initial draft only sickens things. I have seen other reputable breeders, who wouldn't even surf the BOI, have frivolous things said about them, and then they almost have no choice but to come and try to defend themselves against the nonsense, usually after a BOI-savvy friend has told them about it. These very entities, John and Lane and Chris and Dennis Scott (Vince admitted his mistake with regards to me) never did anything in that thread to admit that they had no quotes from me or my business ever bad-mouthing them, and went right on trashing me beyond what they complained had been done to them by others, on a far larger stage. I now find myself admitting that they could very well have a go at me again for no good reason ... didn't stop them before! And the above thread shows the levels of stupidity and animosity that are just waiting to flow! It is amazing, and pathetic! But as Dan said in his above post ..... the incident with Lane now is exactly what the BOI is for, for many good reasons. Fortunately for me, it exposes those who threw stones at me in the past as crooks in the eyes of many. I wish it didn't matter, but it does! Not that you want to waste your own time reviewing any of these older threads, but Lane just made up stuff about me ... blatant lies about me .... unbelievable! Even without a written agreement, she is way out of line in this deal with Shelley, and John Lucas crying "foul" has many of us laughing! My view is that I am still a little disappointed with Chris, and it goes back to the September thread. Chris has made a ton of effort made in this hobby, trying to help others, etc. Been there, done that. But I going to speculate that he has some regret also for getting sucked into some unflattering threads, and my point would be that he didn't make enough of an effort to extricate himself. Even his own posts in the old thread, where he is the acknowledged author, and they are addressed to "Jim", didn't leave me feeling at all vindicated. And now it is claimed that he authored the bulk of the text. I know that Chris is a better man than that thread, or the above one, show. My opinion is that he should not have been so heavily involved in either one, but I must claim some ignorance to the above one, as I have not read it all, and don't care too. But if he willingly jumped into the mud, and wasn't pulled in, then its hard to have much sympathy. He was willing in September.

Have we found some humor? Sure! With Lane, its now like shooting fish in a barrrel! With John, and Web Slave, and the hypocricy exposed? Good chuckle there too. And even when noting the sophistication of "John's " initial BOI post against me back in September, when compared to his current writing style, grammar, etc, well ......... ? On the upside, the thread may pressure Lane into some compensation, and if not, her name is MUDD ( I believe the original reference goes back to a Dr. Mudd, who was sentenced to jail for administering to an injured John Wilkes Booth after the assassination), and it absolutely displays the need for written agreements, even among "friends".

In any case, Jason (and Dan), your posts are worth reading, and I admire your level-headedness. Maybe some day all this animosity will run out of steam. And Vince (busy I'm sure) and Chris (likewise) and Dennis and even John, I wish you all well in your current and future projects. But Lane ?????? No ....... you have too much that needs fixing. Thanks again Jason.

Jim Flaherty
The Chameleon Company, LLC