Beware of Jeane Best & Wendy Childs

I agree with much of what you say, but the answer was in the very next sentance, which you excluded from your quote:

but its the rest of the truly respected reptile community that thinks the BOI is a joke

And its because of the lynch-mob mentality that pervades in threads like this,

Lucille, I am not going to waste my time researching, but you yourself have claimed many times exactly as I said with regard to attacks made on you here in the BOI, and how it hurt your feelings and stifled your participation. You are infamous for that claim. And you have never been accused of theft, scamming, violating TOS, etc. I believe your crime was disagreement, or just having an opinion not shared by some others. Yes, the BOI has served some useful purposes, but it did not stop you from levying the same criticism when you were the target of the stupidity of others. The BOI is littered with countless flame wars, with a few racking up enormous post counts.

Tell you what Lucille, despite what I have been told by many in the community, which is exactly as I stated, why don't you tell me why they do not post here ?

Originally Posted by Chameleon Company

Tell you what Lucille, despite what I have been told by many in the community, which is exactly as I stated, why don't you tell me why they do not post here ?

I can't speak for them.

I suppose there is a basic design choice here: Give people unlimited leeway, and perhaps you are correct in that sometimes instead of a business focus there is a flame war.
But they need enough leeway to get the job done.

The bounty hunters in the days of yore were not your tea and crumpet types, they were rough and crude. While that might not be appropriate in a parlor or some other settings, it got the bad guys rounded up and brought in. If the bounty hunters got too far out of line, the sheriff could always step in, but in general they hunted their bounties to get results.

I understand your point, I am just saying that there is value here, to the community and to prospective purchasers.

I don't know if I am still enabled for bringing up post-count participation in threads, which Jim O. has thankfully provided in earlier posts, or I am just all thumbs in trying to find it. According to the last one Jim O. posted, the top three posters who were in what I will label the "anti Jeane and Wendy camp", were Timmy DeFrees, Wes, and Sammy (Shrap). They were also the top three posters overall, but I was neck-and-neck with Sammy. None of us were the thread starter .... amazing. Here, in their own words:

Sammy:

Where did I ever say she scammed anyone Jim? Where? Never did. I said she is a career criminal with no ethics, is a manipulator that dont care who she hurts to get her way or what she wants.

The above is from a PM exchange he and I had last night, where I requested he call me to explain where Wendy or Jeane had scammed anyone, but is also affirmed in Post #575. He declined the call, saying it would serve no purpose. More fun to insult from behind the keyboard I guess ...... OK ?

Wes:

Oh yeah, chamcos whore trying to steal from Erik.

She did. She got caught. She's not only a lying sack of not good stuff, but not a very good person at all.

Wes, you bumbling fool. Being mad as hell because an animal arrived dead, telling the shipper you feel that they bore some responsibility, and being dissatisfied with animals that you felt were improperly described, is not theft. Erik ignored his own TOS regarding this matter. Wendy's claim may have lacked merit on the DOA as she missed the first delivery, but not regarding the small animals? No dispute with any claim of lack of tact, as I agree. The chargeback was only initiated when he refused to talk with them, as Wendy uses the "F" word, and honor his own TOS. Wes, I wish my dog would eat as well as you do here. Throw any crap in front of you and you lap it right up, and then beg for more ! No problem with your view that she "is not a very good person" though. I don't quite put it that way is all. She has a real tough row to hoe in front of her.

Timmy, our post count leader. His diatribes here need no quote, but to paraphrase, "Wendy is a lying, cheating, thieving POS scumbag", which he was echoing in another thread before this one even began. A convicted felon, he brought the details of Wendy's past here. After doing so, it was pointed out by others who did some digging that he had a criminal record , to include two felony convictions, for larceny in excess of $500, and burglary. I would hope he mends his ways, but in the last two weeks he has participated in phone harassment at all hours of the morning. I believe he is frustrated that I turn my ringers off before I go to bed. He also sent the Animal Control Folks to Wendy and Jeane's house, where they passed handily.

As for Erik, the thread starter, I have answered his questions and shown where he erred in communications, and had a few minor mis-statements here, and failed his own TOS. I don't think him a scammer or liar, just having not done a good job here, which a few "newbie's" picked up on as well.

Lucille, I would say that the top three posters, and I believe I have accurately quoted and commented as to their positions here, have three differing agendas or reasons for wanting to trash Wendy and Jeane. So with one she's "not a scammer but is a career criminal without any convictions", then behind door #2 "she is a thief" , and behind cell door #3 "I just hate her etc". I would differentiate between a lynch mob and a bounty hunter. Bounty hunters aside ..... they at least had to go out into the real world, not hide behind their keyboards. Even "Dog, Bounty Hunter" would piss on these pretenders.

Wendy's character comes into play here because we have to believe her side of the story. She has contradicted herself many times and frankly I don't believe anything she says. So what do we have. We have Wendy who hasn't proven she was even home at the time of delivery, hasn't produced one of her own emails, hasn't proven the gecko died during shipment. She has a reputation of being a loud mouthed pain in the a$$ and a proven criminal.
On the other hand we have Eric, who has a great reputation, provided emails to back up his story. Why have TOS if you're just going to throw them out? He decided to play hard ball this time. Didn't you say "if you can't do the time don't do the crime". Well that could be used here. If you can't abide by the seller's TOS don't cry when you're not compensated for your oversite.

So much for keeping private messages “private”, as was requested of Sammy by someone earlier.

Jim,

You continue to dig yourself deeper. While I question the merits of the BOI and its effectiveness, in this case, facts override your fiction. Remember when I arguing back and forth with people and you told me to take a step back and cool down? In this case, you should probably heed your own advice. It would be one thing if this Timmy made up a bunch of stories about Wendy (and I truly believe Timmy is right on the same level with the way he has acted) but a simple Google search will give you all the information needed. Erik not only did everything right but backed it up with proof. Please, let it go. All it can do is harm your standing in the community.

That should read "was arguing" back and forth....

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

So much for keeping private messages “private”, as was requested of Sammy by someone earlier.

True "Someone" did make a rather point if that earlier.

Pot meet kettle??

I think so!!!!!!!!!

-deicide

Originally Posted by deicide

True "Someone" did make a rather point if that earlier.

Pot meet kettle??

I think so!!!!!!!!!

-deicide

That was supposed to read.

True "Someone" did make a rather big point of that earlier.

Jim F. your in a no win situation.
What someone did in the past is exactly that , in the past.
Will it effect how many judge them??, Of course.

But other than some bad language, and poor shipment receiving skills.
I see very little in this thread that has to do with the actual issue.

Personally I don't see what relevance it has whether she was a porn star or the first lady. None of that has anything to do with this particular deal.

just my $0.02

-deicide

Originally Posted by deicide

Personally I don't see what relevance it has whether she was a porn star or the first lady. None of that has anything to do with this particular deal.

just my $0.02

-deicide

Wrong. It has relevance in the same way it would have relevance if introduced at a trial. It speaks to her credibility. She is proven to be a liar and a criminal. Why would ANYONE (other than Jim) believe her in this instance?