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

I cant see why crested lady wouldn't simply write on her website that "due to a change in ingredients which have not yet been evaluated the product is no longer being offered". Perhaps even an email link to the Clarks support staff to inquire what the big change was. Her own customers may have emailed her back to say the change in ingredient as explained seems acceptable.

Cherry flavor, tutti fruity, gerber, beechnut, who cares! I can stick my face in a sloppy mess of clarks gecko diet but I cant eat fresh spinach in my salad. The world is upside down.

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

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to assume that you would have made a phone call described as being "obscene and yelling", and that you then would have rescinded the agreement to a refund ?

No Jim you ,most assuredly may not assume that I would respond in that manner and I take offense to your wording that hints that I would. I, in no way condone that action if, it indeed took place.

We will have to agree to disagree on Sarah's motives for posting that statement on her website. I see it as a blatant attempt to elicit a response from the Clarks. Nothing more..

Your statement about escalation on both side is both correct and incorrect. The fact....yes I say fact remains that if that statement had not been posted, no further problems. Saying it is moot makes no sense. All further actions were a direct result of that act. The situation was resolved and Sarah chose to throw gas on the fire anyways.

I have now invested just about all the time both this situation and this particular conversation are worthy of.

Have at it guys

Let not your heart be troubled. I posed the question knowing that you would not condone the rescinding of the refund:

No Jim you ,most assuredly may not assume that I would respond in that manner and I take offense to your wording that hints that I would. I, in no way condone that action if, it indeed took place.

And I thought that was evident with this post by me:

Ken and John ..... What I also assume is that none of us would have rescinded the refund offer regardless

To me, it was the fulcrum of Sarah's concern, and a very valid point which seemed to be omitted in the posts of others.

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

To me, it was the fulcrum of Sarah's concern, and a very valid point which seemed to be omitted in the posts of others.

Her wanting a refund and supposively not getting it was the only reason to post on the BOI. The way her post was laid out, she made it seem as if Clark had done some evil thing, and was trying to endanger all of his customers' geckos. The ONLY thing that was changed in the diet was the flavor of something. He didn't remove a key ingredient and replace it with filler. He didn't add some experimental substance to see how the animals did with it. He changed the flavor of baby food flakes. Something she could have very easily gone to the local grocery store and looked at the nutritional information HER SELF! Instead, she posts information on her web site and the BOI that makes Clarks Diet seem like a bad product and horrible company to do business with due to "dishonesty." Extremely poor business ethics on her part if you ask me. All that was required of her was to say she was not satisfied with the product change, asked for a refund, and was denied. Even if she had been truthful about the change itself, instead of portraying it as she did, things would have been better off. Did she deserve her refund? It was an absurd reason, but yes. Do I believe her alleged obscene phone call? Yes and no... While it may be 100% true that he got angry on the phone with her, I do NOT believe she was innocent in that department. Clark not battling it here does NOT admit guilt. I felt he was very mature about the way he responded on the board, bringing up the phone call, whether the accusation is true or not, was not necessary. He did not say hateful things about her, he didn't take jabs at her business, he stated his side, and was done. In the end Crested Lady got her refund. Good for her, but in my eyes her one true accomplishment was making herself look more dishonest and deceitful than she tried making Clarks Diet look. For that I give her a big thumbs up and welcome to my "do not buy from" list.

Her wanting a refund and supposively not getting it was the only reason to post on the BOI.

We are in agreement here! IMO, I do not see either side as having done or implied anything "evil" or "endangering" though. Some people are absolute sticklers for 110% accuracy on an ingredients label. Others are less demanding. No doubt many of us would have reacted differently at many of the decision points.

Originally Posted by HerpKeeperVA

The ONLY thing that was changed in the diet was the flavor of something. He didn't remove a key ingredient and replace it with filler. He didn't add some experimental substance to see how the animals did with it.

What Sarah reacted to was the fact that the Clarks admitted having altered the formula on previous occasions without bothering to notify the buyers. I would have reacted the same way. The two "flavors" did not have identical nutritional values, as the Clarks themselves posted. Whether the replaced ingredient was better, worse or equivalent doesn't mitigate their responsibilities: to inform their customers that the formula was altered, however minimally, and to have the replacement ingredient lab tested to ensure that the finished product was comparable.

Rescinding an agreed upon refund isn't just wrong, it is illegal. Even had Sarah posted on her site, "The Clark food isn't worth feeding to stray bluebellies", she was still legally owed a refund for the items she purchased that they could not provide: the original formula food. If they felt her comments were libelous, they could sue her. They could not, legally, retain her monies.

Originally Posted by jaxom1957

Rescinding an agreed upon refund isn't just wrong, it is illegal. Even had Sarah posted on her site, "The Clark food isn't worth feeding to stray bluebellies", she was still legally owed a refund for the items she purchased that they could not provide: the original formula food. If they felt her comments were libelous, they could sue her. They could not, legally, retain her monies.

Although all completely true, I think the issue is that when you bring things to the BOI, people tend to judge both on legality and on how individuals choose to conduct themselves whilst doing business.

I think that rescinding the refund due to the negative comment Crested Lady posted on her website was extremely poor judgement and unprofessional. I also feel that the disclaimer posted by Crested Lady was very poorly phrased, and that the way she handled the situation (before the refund was rescinded) was a little too harsh/accusatory, and therefore on the verge of being unprofessional.

I think that's what people are debating now; the manner in which this was handled, as opposed to the legalities, and since people have different opinions on that, this thread is lasting some time past the resolution.

Did this gecko food producer ever re label the changed ingredients in their product.

Thats ingredient, Ed, just one ingredient.... not plural.

And digging this thread back up out of spite because you did not like what was said to you in another thread is kinda sad. This issue has been settled long ago. You go on and on about MKR unjustly hurting other peoples biz, but you came here for no other reason than to try to do the same thing. Out of spite. Sad, Ed. Very sad.