Steven Brenner Transaction

Originally Posted by calebroad

Is there anything relevant to the theft at hand (stolen animal) that you would like me to post further about?

Although you are owed the snow, the fact that it has not been shipped yet cannot be characterized as a theft, (it is an unusual animal and your latest agreement was mere weeks ago) notwithstanding your laughable offer to fly up and talk to a judge (after your fraud and illegal mailing, no less).
You know you are not flying anywhere, it was an idiotic piece of drama. And, I believe, relevant to Steven's silence. Why would he make an appearance when you are acting a fool? (I did contact him, he may have taken one look at your tripe and just decided he wasn't going to deal with you.)

Originally Posted by Gerards

There's 3 clear routes to choose from, and that's come up with the cash, the trade, or return the caramel.

This is a reasonable way to interact, with reasonable choices, and had the OP been reasonable, Steven may have updated the status of the snow by now.

Originally Posted by Lucille

Although you are owed the snow, the fact that it has not been shipped yet cannot be characterized as a theft, (it is an unusual animal and your latest agreement was mere weeks ago) notwithstanding your laughable offer to fly up and talk to a judge (after your fraud and illegal mailing, no less).
You know you are not flying anywhere, it was an idiotic piece of drama. And, I believe, relevant to Steven's silence. Why would he make an appearance when you are acting a fool? (I did contact him, he may have taken one look at your tripe and just decided he wasn't going to deal with you.)




This is a reasonable way to interact, with reasonable choices, and had the OP been reasonable, Steven may have updated the status of the snow by now.

In my very first post, as well as contacts, that were sent very early on, I was extremely polite, even though I could see that remarks were being made by Steven Brenner, seemed to try to twist my words. Seemed to be things that someone with bad intentions might say, but I was not sure.

I even stated, in my very first post to this thread, that no matter what I say, the other party was trying to twist the wording, as to use against me. I even stated that Steven Brenner would likely say that, if I had not gone to the BOI, I would have had my snow.

And now, as the reality of the theft has set in, my context and my wording has become stronger, since the reality of the situation has become more obvious.

And now, Steven Brenner has a spokeswomen, that is saying on his behalf, that if I had done this, or done that, I would have my snow.

So, as Steven Brenners spokeswomen, are you saying that the turtle is stolen forever, because of my actions?

Which would be exactly, 100% what I stated in my opening complaint?

Thank You

Originally Posted by Lucille

Although you are owed the snow, the fact that it has not been shipped yet cannot be characterized as a theft, (it is an unusual animal and your latest agreement was mere weeks ago) notwithstanding your laughable offer to fly up and talk to a judge (after your fraud and illegal mailing, no less).
You know you are not flying anywhere, it was an idiotic piece of drama. And, I believe, relevant to Steven's silence. Why would he make an appearance when you are acting a fool? (I did contact him, he may have taken one look at your tripe and just decided he wasn't going to deal with you.)




This is a reasonable way to interact, with reasonable choices, and had the OP been reasonable, Steven may have updated the status of the snow by now.

Surprised to see this here......this borders on third-party message delivery, and from a longtime member like you, I don't quite understand it. If you spoke to someone involved in the possible theft/non-delivery of an animal.....why can he not come here and say his piece himself? It does seem as though you're speaking for him, with major conjecture being alluded to.

Originally Posted by Lucille

Although you are owed the snow, the fact that it has not been shipped yet cannot be characterized as a theft, (it is an unusual animal and your latest agreement was mere weeks ago) notwithstanding your laughable offer to fly up and talk to a judge (after your fraud and illegal mailing, no less).
You know you are not flying anywhere, it was an idiotic piece of drama. And, I believe, relevant to Steven's silence. Why would he make an appearance when you are acting a fool? (I did contact him, he may have taken one look at your tripe and just decided he wasn't going to deal with you.)




This is a reasonable way to interact, with reasonable choices, and had the OP been reasonable, Steven may have updated the status of the snow by now.

Another part of this that sticks out to me......at first you say the OP is "acting a fool".....then go on to say right below it that he is being reasonable. So which is he: reasonable or a fool? Seem like polar opposites to me.

Originally Posted by Lucille

it is an unusual animal

It's not unusual, it's expensive. There's plenty available, and purchasing one would only take a phone call. If I had any left I'd end this right now, but I've sold them all.

Originally Posted by DavidBeard

Another part of this that sticks out to me......at first you say the OP is "acting a fool".....then go on to say right below it that he is being reasonable. So which is he: reasonable or a fool? Seem like polar opposites to me.

I think she was talking to me on that part.

Originally Posted by Gerards

I'm friends with both people involved in this topic, and have been asked several times, by both people, what my opinion is. The mods only seem to address their hurt feelings from the past, so I thought I'd respond. Steven, he's agreed to the caramel or split snow, what's the hold up? That Caramel is huge and worth the trade he's agreed to, and it's been along time now. If you can come up with the trade, what's the problem? There's 3 clear routes to choose from, and that's come up with the cash, the trade, or return the caramel. I know Dawn loves that turtle, and if I had one of those turtles I'd give t to you to square up with, but the fact is that you owe him from that caramel. I don't see what's so complicated about it. Mods, great job at staying on topic, you guys are real pros.

There has only been one moderator that's posted in this thread and he has only posted questions related to this transaction except to address off topic statements made by Chris.

Originally Posted by Bobby Douglass

There has only been one moderator that's posted in this thread and he has only posted questions related to this transaction except to address off topic statements made by Chris.

Im sorry, is Lucille a moderator?

Originally Posted by calebroad

Im sorry, is Lucille a moderator?

She is not.

Originally Posted by Gerards

I'm friends with both people involved in this topic, and have been asked several times, by both people, what my opinion is. The mods only seem to address their hurt feelings from the past, so I thought I'd respond. Steven, he's agreed to the caramel or split snow, what's the hold up? That Caramel is huge and worth the trade he's agreed to, and it's been along time now. If you can come up with the trade, what's the problem? There's 3 clear routes to choose from, and that's come up with the cash, the trade, or return the caramel. I know Dawn loves that turtle, and if I had one of those turtles I'd give t to you to square up with, but the fact is that you owe him from that caramel. I don't see what's so complicated about it. Mods, great job at staying on topic, you guys are real pros.

Based on the emboldened portion(s), you may have been reading something else somewhere else. I am the only moderator that has been responding in this thread. There have also been various types of non-moderator posts by interested members seeking to flesh out the situation and add differing points of input. The blue text was anything in official moderator capacity and the standard text color was as an individual member to request information for clarity (what was done involving the deal and what actions were taken that were tangential to the deal itself...for better and for worse) as well as to address various matters of inaccuracy posited as factual (switching back to blue text if relating to false statements regarding what is involved in site policy). Even when providing instruction as a moderator regarding the provision of image-based evidence in this venue, I did so with specific cautionary guidance so that Chris Davis could avoid commonplace rule breaks that lead to the issuance of point-bearing infractions since I anticipated that possibility and felt he would benefit from not earning such.

Thanks. It can be difficult when some people only weigh in because they enjoy stirring the pot using imagination-based slights despite what the posts actually say in a given thread, but we somehow manage despite the poor signal-to-noise ratio that can crop up from those parties.

------------

I do not think members discussing this here disagree that the current agreement should be completed as outlined and that that piece of things is for Steven to finalize with delivery of the snow RES with split scutes, but I have only read the entirety of the thread without skipping any portions or imagining something that is not present.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

Based on the emboldened portion(s), you may have been reading something else somewhere else. I am the only moderator that has been responding in this thread. There have also been various types of non-moderator posts by interested members seeking to flesh out the situation and add differing points of input. The blue text was anything in official moderator capacity and the standard text color was as an individual member to request information for clarity (what was done involving the deal and what actions were taken that were tangential to the deal itself...for better and for worse) as well as to address various matters of inaccuracy posited as factual (switching back to blue text if relating to false statements regarding what is involved in site policy). Even when providing instruction as a moderator regarding the provision of image-based evidence in this venue, I did so with specific cautionary guidance so that Chris Davis could avoid commonplace rule breaks that lead to the issuance of point-bearing infractions since I anticipated that possibility and felt he would benefit from not earning such.

Thanks. It can be difficult when some people only weigh in because they enjoy stirring the pot using imagination-based slights despite what the posts actually say in a given thread, but we somehow manage despite the poor signal-to-noise ratio that can crop up from those parties.

------------

I do not think members discussing this here disagree that the current agreement should be completed as outlined and that that piece of things is for Steven to finalize with delivery of the snow RES with split scutes, but I have only read the entirety of the thread without skipping any portions or imagining something that is not present.

I thought Lucille was a moderator, so maybe I gave her posts more merit than what was deserved. She was most definately stirring the pot. I appreciated the advice that was provided to me with regards to posting and avoiding infractions, I found it useful and also It was provided upon my requesting that info.

Even though I understand the BOI can't get my turtle back, overall I'm very happy that I was able to use this resource to post my views. And despite any past occurrences, I believe I have received a fair shake, and I did not believe that would happen. So thank you