Nick Lillis

Originally Posted by Roscoe09

Wanting truth isn't immature but destroying someone who can't provide it is the immature part.

I fail to believe he cannot provide it even if he can only "relay" what the op told him was in the vet reports but I would have thought that due to their "agreement" he would have a copy and read it thoroughly.

So cant provide becomes WONT provide imho.

Of course this may all be pie in the sky and the real reason he cannot/will not provide is because NO TESTS WERE EVER DONE......

Originally Posted by Black Adder

I fail to believe he cannot provide it even if he can only "relay" what the op told him was in the vet reports but I would have thought that due to their "agreement" he would have a copy and read it thoroughly.

So cant provide becomes WONT provide imho.

Of course this may all be pie in the sky and the real reason he cannot/will not provide is because NO TESTS WERE EVER DONE......

One wonders, if no tests were done (and this shady business of denying the information, or quashing it, does make it suspicious that anything was done), what incentive would the OP or original accuser have to also hide the information?

It becomes a question of, did someone get a good deal out of the situation in exchange for dropping the whole thing and going dark.

It might be circumstantial, but it is very curious. And shady,

Originally Posted by senusenu

One wonders, if no tests were done (and this shady business of denying the information, or quashing it, does make it suspicious that anything was done), what incentive would the OP or original accuser have to also hide the information?

It becomes a question of, did someone get a good deal out of the situation in exchange for dropping the whole thing and going dark.

It might be circumstantial, but it is very curious. And shady.

D'oh, that should have ended with a period, not a comma.

With the way the OP behaved I can't help but feel for Nick a little... maybe that's naïve, but I'm just thinking how unreasonable and seemingly delusional she was. Nick, if you can't provide the vet paper work I personally can understand that, since it wasn't your paperwork to have... however you must have some form of paper trail from the resolution? Maybe post screenshots of the messages from her? You must understand why this does look shady, and if the OP hadn't behaved the way she was I would have a pretty dim opinion of you myself as the posts from both you and her (or lack there of) do make it sound like the terms of the resolution was she would NOT share the paperwork, which would suggest you have something to hide. If I were you I'd blame her customer for that, and now the members of the forums. They just want to truth... not to get you. Of course, that's just my take on it...

Originally Posted by AllisonLeigh

If I were you I'd blame your customer for that, and not the members of the forums. They just want to truth... not to get you. Of course, that's just my take on it...

Had to fix a couple typos, typing too fast :P

Originally Posted by senusenu

He doesn't care enough about his buyers (or his Paypal agreement) to NOT force his customers to pay HIS Paypal fees.

Current Fauna ads Lillis is running also show him stating that he will charge customers for using Paypal.

For the 4% it charges, right? I can see why but I don’t really think it’s fair. PayPal is payment choice for fauna users. I haven’t seen anyone else do it. I must admit his green iguana morphs look high quality.

Originally Posted by Lucille

Current Fauna ads Lillis is running also show him stating that he will charge customers for using Paypal.

I'd pay it if the animals look good. I sincerely think he COULD be an asset to the community if he plays his cards right. As I said before, if he screws up again, he will get buried here. But I'm optimistic. He could have just charged extra for the animal to cover the PayPal cost, which many do, but at least he is being honest. Please prove me right Nick. Make a name for yourself and don't look back...