A really good chameleon info site...

Hello Jim,

You may or may not remember me. We have corresponded via email at least once in the past, and I wrote you again relatively recently looking for a female F. pardalis during my employment at The Dallas World Aquarium as a keeper-- without a response. You must be extremely busy, as we all are, so I absolutely understand.

I am well aware of your popular success keeping, breeding and selling F. pardalis-- as well as other species- for the commercial trade. Many of us also frequently flip the pages of the non-academic and informal-- but nevertheless useful, entertaining and informative-- Reptiles Magazine, for which you recently contributed with an article involving your business, among other things.

I feel that it would be irresponsible, or unprofessional at best, for me to assess, evaluate, or even make conclusions regarding your practices, the content of your website, or your personal preference (which is your right and privilege, as it is for all of us) involving the disclosure (or not) of your personal information. On the other hand, I found your assessment, evaluation and conclusions regarding TheChameleonsDish.com to be not only inconsistent with your original argument, but also unfair and unfounded.

It is precisely because of your popularity and success, at least in the pet trade, that I was disappointed in your approach to the subject of which we speak. The reason for which I write is not to discuss whether or not TheChameleonsDish.com is an incomplete portal, or as you indicated, one with "only partial information," but to point out, as a fellow chameleon enthusiast, that it is not only in our interest, but is also our responsibility and obligation, to share our information-- both our successes and failures-- with others in the "chameleon community"- as in the case of TheChameleonsDish.com; especially if the author is not only open to such practices, but encourages feedback from so-called "experts."

So let us be realistic here and face the fact that there seems to exists, among the internet herpetocultural community, at least an isolated lack of cooperation and communication, based many times on a desire to be "the first one and only one." I am not by any means insinuating anything, or directly pointing any fingers at anyone (and I only refrain from doing so here because it is partially irrelevant to this discussion), but can frankly admit and even suggest that many of us have been guilty of such unhealthy urges or thoughts once or twice.

Because this post would become boring and long if I were to systematically present the inconsistencies in your argument (especially since you do not even have time to read more than 10% or the website from which your evaluation stems), I will attempt to present mine in a simplistic manner:

1) Your strongest premise, and one on which you seem to maintain a great deal of focus, especially in your own practice, is the need for "credentials" and references. Not only do you mention this at the beginning of your argument, but you continue to do so until the end:

and their credentials are not listed except to say that they have "lifelong" experience,

I would recommend that the author identify themselves and stake out their credentials for the evaluation of the reader, and would challenge them by asking what are they hiding?

and I can't say this enough, but "anonymous" advice is to be taken with tremendous caution.

So, until you identify who you are, the sources of your current information and conclusions, and/or the experience upon which you have drawn this information, I would tell all to take your site with a large grain of salt.

This collection of quotations lead me to believe that you are of the opinion that the accuracy or credibility of information is directly based on the reputation of the author who published the information, or the authors from which the information was gathered. This is not only misleading, but also inconclusive at best. The value of any compilation of text is not based solely on the reputation of the author, but rather, on the actual content of the writing.

Now, for the sake of the argument, let us consider that the information provided or published on TheChameleonsDish.com website is not valuable or has been found to be incorrect or incomplete. It would then be the responsibility of the "experts" to take a few minutes of their time to contact the author and present their concerns. Which brings me to the subject of time:

"If I only had the time" being the key words, or for that matter, if the "author" only had the time.

Alas, I cannot find the time right now to get all the information in my studies, and between my ears, in my own site.

I do not have the time to put all that I know in my own website, much less those of anyone else, but thank you for the invitation.

We are all very busy, and yet, we can still find a few minutes to post on this forum, at least periodically. I personally do not post here much, but I have noted that the frequency of your postings is not what I would call low, Jim. The time it took you to write the few posts in this discussion would have been more than enough time to contact the author of TheChameleonsDish.com directly, and, as I mentioned earlier, satisfy the responsibility one has to promote accuracy in this dynamic medium. If one truly does not possess the time to attempt to communicate a concern to others, then others are left to assume that the purpose of one's negative remarks on a public forum (without first approaching the involved parties) is not to promote accuracy and precision or information, but rather, to create an environment of persistent miscommunication. In other words, I am disappointed in your handling of the matter, especially when being aware of your success and good "reputation."

The author of TheChameleonsDish (we'll call him/her Donald Duck) has appeared on this forum and, in what I thought was a very professional manner, responded to your attacks. And yet, your admitting to read only 10% of the website under discussion illustrates your unfounded accusations and your disinterest in confronting an author willing to discuss the matter in public:

So, until you identify who you are, the sources of your current information and conclusions, and/or the experience upon which you have drawn this information, I would tell all to take your site with a large grain of salt. I also will not reply to you again until you make such disclosure. I hope that you can understand the importance of this in any journalistic endeavor, but to be quite blunt, you have deliberately evaded it so far.

These are a few of the most obvious inconsistencies in your argument, Jim, but there are others which very strongly suggest the inherent danger in comments such as these:

I would tell all to take your site with a large grain of salt.

and like so many others who unfortunately take too much of what they read from limited resources as gospel, they have only themselves to blame for not doing enough homework. CD, I will blame you too though.

I can now say that I know a lot more about who you are, Jim, not by your name on your website, or by the references you provide, but by your mishandling (in my opinion) of something that could have been discussed with a bit more discretion and sensitivity. As many of you know, I was the first to complement TheChameleonsDish for its superior presentation and design, while at the same time, addressing "issues" and other concerns with the author directly. This forum is a great way to talk about differences of opinion, but accusing someone for evasion while doing exactly the same thing upon their appearance seems unprofessional and unfair.

Other interesting contradictory statements include:

I didn't see anything that I would call "erroneous" advice

as opposed to

I haven't read 10% of your site, but in the 10% that I did read, as I noted in my earlier, I found what I thought was bad information.

All in all, as you said in your post, there are differences of opinion, and I have tried to present mine as clearly as possible. I welcome your response, of course. I would whether I knew who you were or not (your privacy does not concern me), but I will apologize in advance if my reply is not immediate-- I'm sure you'll understand, Jim.

I have contacted the author of TheChameleonsDish and have discussed small changes or modifications that I believe would be beneficial to the portal. I encourage everyone who finds a problem with the content of the website to contact the author through his/her site, and present your concerns. Having said all that I have said, I will not go as far as to influence readers (with my name or reputation) and suggest to take Jim's argument with a grain of salt, but I hope that everyone will look at the many sides of this discussion with a global and clear perspective.

With all respects to you, Jim, and to everyone else,

Fabian Aguirre
Senior Keeper
Department of Herpetology
The Dallas Zoo
merumontanus@mac.com
www.dallas-zoo.org

Fabian,
Without wasting time with being long-winded, I can't disagree more with your mistatements of what I have said. You seem to quote me as saying that credentials are "needed" at some level before a person can have credibility . Those are your words, not mine. In all my posts above, I say that a person needs to post their name and experience, and make it quite clear that people need to know the experiences on which the information provided about husbandry is based. Whether it be all the other chameleon resources out there, from the websites of other breeders, to the E-Zine, etc, sources are almost always identified, if not meticulously so. If you do not agree with me, so be it. As to the requirement for those who have experience to come and proof-read and correct the misinformation of others....... sorry, but no dice. Many of us do it when we can, but as I said above, why should I waste time with someone who feels no need to post who they are, and what their level of experience is? Its not because I or anyone else feels a need for secrecy or the keeping of proprietary info. Maybe we have things to do besides write other people's websites, eh? If you have the time Fabian, then knock yourself out. But don't tell me or anyone else that it is our responsibility to fix every person that wants to come along and post info on the intenet, which you do clearly indicate. Balderdash. As for any attempt to communicate with me, sorry if I missed your note, but I have no recollection of it, and guess it couldn't have been too important then to you. Fabian, I and many others have businesses to run, obligations to meet, etc.

Forums across the internet are loaded with the blind leading the blind. Here in this very Fauna site, people pretending to be things they are not have been exposed constantly. Whether it be a scam, or some kid claiming to have a business which does not exist, hundreds of chameleons that do not exist, and years of experience that never happened. And yet, they continue to post in forums wanting to be an expert, when in another forum they were compelled to admit that they were outright lying about their credentials.
There are errors in the website you have applauded here. There are errors in many websites. Mine included. But we are identified, and our credentials are there to be evaluated with the information, and for people to decide what measure of salt to take with what we say. If you took the time to look back again at the words used, and their meanings, you would see as others have that it is all about authoring your work and opinion. It means something to a few of us. So, if you want to recommend that the site is good, and that the advice is good, I am not stopping you. I will always recommend that people get their info from a variety of identified sources. And to those who feel it not important, that is their choice.

Fabian and others,
Maybe a simpler way to understand it. Go pick up a couple of issues of Reptiles Magazine. Look at the articles about whatever reptile topics interest you. In every case there is an author. Often a short bio at the end, and maybe a link to more information. The author also will usually include anecdotal information to which he or she has had first-hand experience to support the advice that they give. While magazines naturally select those at the higher end of the experience spectrum, one thing you will not see is "this person is the biggest, best, etc". Its not about that in any of the articles. Its about providing the reader with a reference upon which to digest the opinions and info offered. As the website recommended here currently sits, it does not have that, and even Fabian has identified the "webmaster" as "he or she". Safely put at this point. At least with Reptiles Magazine, if no author were listed, you would still make assumptions as to the credibility of the author because you'd expect that they had passed some vetting standard for the magazine. But with the internet the only vetting process is a combination of what the author identifies about themselves, and your ability to then cross-reference and check it. Whether it be forums where every one is an expert, and yet we know that some surely are not, to websites, to books, the credentials are not there to "prove" something, but rather to be evaluated in light of the opinions and conclusions provided. Even Fabian, in his post which took some disagreement with me, fully identified who he was and referred to his experience, for others to weigh. The "Webmaster" does not in his/her site, and neither in his/her post. Whover started this thread called it a "really good chameleon information site" or something to that effect. Sorry to hurt the feelings of some, which it seems that I have, but to those who recommended this website, while it has a nice look, is well formatted, and presents a lot of good info. It also has some significant mistakes. But most importantly, it is missing an essential ingredient which is vital to being taken seriously. Its at the heart of all works of non-fiction, to include chameleon websites. Who are you, and what are your qualifications in this matter? Not how extensive they may or may not be, grandiose or otherwise. Just what are they?

Here's what you say, among many other innacuracies in your post:

Other interesting contradictory statements (by Chamco) include:

as opposed to

Fabian, I thank you for the accuracy of your quotes, as you did not change the words. But maybe you omitted a little bit of context? The first quote was made on February 15th, which you conveniently omitted, and as I explained then, had only briefly scanned the website that you recommended. I also pointed out then my major concern about the website having an anonymous author. The second quote was made today, over three weeks later, and in direct reply to the still unidentified webmaster, and much more in a focused criticism of the anonymous webmaster giving bad information. Still contradictory Fabian? Do you need an explanation as to the consistency? Maybe you and the author share an affinity for ommission?

Fabian, you and others are welcome to take your salt by the pound with regard to all that I say, but I have not misquoted anyone in this thread, taken the statements of others out of context so as to change or misrepresent them, or deliberately mischaracterized you or the author. Its one thing to disagree Fabian, but another altogether to mischaracterize and omit relevent context so as to cast doubt on another. I criticised the website and its author for their secrecy. I do not know who the author is. But you took it quite personally, to the point of not only feeling a need to then attack me personally, but to be rather innaccurate at it as well.
It is nice to have your advice also as to how I should allocate my time, and use it in correcting this person's website. I could say that you have very little clue as to the volume of research just on the Vitamin A issue alone, but that would be an assumption on my part. If I am to assume that you are aware of it, then I guess we disagree on just how much time it would take for me to educate others on it if that were a goal of mine. Even my own website is not yet that updated. But above it all, I simply refuse to give my time to someone who has chosen to hide in anonymity.

Jim,

Thank you for your numerous responses. I have no problem with long-winded discussions, you seemed to have changed your mind about that.

You seem to quote me as saying that credentials are "needed" at some level before a person can have credibility . Those are your words, not mine.

The context of your statements were not changed by my quoting. They are exactly your own words, as you wrote them. The fact that I gathered the quotations from your different posts, even if they took place over a period of a few weeks, does not change the fact that you were the first one to take the time to communicate your collection of negative comments regarding a website that was considered to be excellent in regards to its artistic accomplishment, and that was CLEARLY noted for its simplistic approach. No one ever said the information was worthy of publication in Herpetological Review or Herpetologica. In fact, it has been the author who has encouraged suggestions from everyone.

I am completely amazed and once again disappointed with the position you have taken. First you accuse the website of contaning erroneous information; then you proceed to challenge the author to appear here (after hearing about it from other people) and disclose personal information, and once he/she has appeared, you refuse to discuss the matter until enough credentials are provided. Jim, have you ever considered the reasons why the author has not "emerged" transparently? I will not even attempt to come up with personal reasons as to why people would want to remain anonymous, it is truly none of my business, and I respect anyone's desire to remain so, just as I respect your wish to wave your credentials in front of everyone.

Now, I am not, and was not by any means, attacking you. I simply stated the facts and quoted your exact words. The complete text is here for everyone to read, and you may look for ways to bring some consistency into your contradictions... you may even continue to post consecutively as you look for loop-holes, but I can tell you with extreme certainty, that I have no interest (although I can make time), to engage in a non-stimulating conversation with someone who has time to accuse people, but not enough time to contribute even a portion of their extensive and overwhelming knowledge and experience. That's what science is all about, Jim: contribution and communication, and not necessarily the type of communication involving your first and last name, or the number of famous names one can spit out in a sentence. The success of online portals such as the E-zine and others comes from the contributions that others make, and if you think that it is not our responsibility to promote accurate information and healthy communication, then I would advise you not to comment on information upon which you are not willing to improve (because you do not have time, or it is no longer convenient at that exact time of the day, etc).

This discussion is no longer (and I am beginning to think that it was never) about the importance of correct information, or the effect that it may have on new-chameleon enthusiasts coming into the field. I wish you could tell us all about the infamous "missing ingredient" in the website, instead of running around in circles telling us that your time is too precious to spend it sending an email or two to a very flexible author who is thirsty for knowledge and contributions. You could have used all this time to decide whether you want to actually do something realistic and productive about it. but you don't have to, and neither do we-- but we do, and so do all the different contributors in many websites around the world. There may be missing ingredients in TheChameleonsDish.com, but the author's personal information is by no means at the top of my list.

I'm not really sure where the comment regarding my "having no clue on vitamin A research" came from, as you know nothing about me (or anyone else you seem to choose for your accusations), but if that is a zone of comfort for you, then by all means exploit it. I'm not someone who would take your comments or anything you say too personally; as I mentioned before, you have made quite an impression on me, but I woulnd't be offended-- I'm not.

Thank you again for the opportunity, Jim, and I wish you the best in your quest-- whatever that may be.

Warmest regards,

Fabián

__________________

Fabián Aguirre
Senior Keeper
Department of Herpetology
The Dallas Zoo
merumontanus@mac.com
www.dallas-zoo.org

I suppose that the reference books on the shelf at the desk of the senior keeper of the reptile department at Dallas Zoo have no authors on them, much less short bio's. No doubt they are noted for their "artistic accomplishment", which you hold in high regard according to your post. You refer to my belief that the person who wrote the website in question, and is rendering their opinions, should identify themselves, as a demand for "personal information". Amazing, but it makes me wish that this were a BOI topic, as it seems the over-reaching prying eyes of the BOI require the full name of the author on every post. How dare they!

Fabian, you are very welcome to have your anonymous works by "he/she", and recommend them to others. Perhaps you thought that you could post about it here and no one would point out the lack of an author or posted bio, much less have someone point out that the now anonymous work contains information that others in the business would take issue with, especially so because the author is anonymous. I have to be glad that in choosing to endorse the site, you at least felt it important enough to say who you were, and not remain a "he/she". My position about authorship is fundamental. Sorry to have run afoul of your artistic interpretations, but if you didn't get it by now, thay's not what I look for in a website. The first thing that I always look for in reading opinions about chameleons is who wrote them, and I am not alone in that view.

As for you only "quoting my words" ? No Fabian, you took them out of context and made a deliberate choice to mischaracterize them once conveniently removed from that context. I learned long ago that when someone cannot debate the facts, they don't, and so they change them. I view your explanation as pathetic. I will not, however, judge the merits of the Dallas Zoo based on the views of one senior keeper.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that in the long list of publications listed in the website of The Dallas Zoo, in the area of Reptiles, and for which the zoo takes some credit in writing, that they were alphabetically categorized by author! No anonymous listings though.

I realize that I had earlier said that I would not respond to a non-entity. That was before the unfortunate hijacking of this thread by someone who felt a need to speak a bit out-of-tune on your behalf. With all that was said, I wanted to clarify some things.

I have not reviewed your site in depth, and do not intend to. Nor have I reviewed anyone else's site completely. From what I saw, I havve no doubts as to your passion for chameleons and your desire to provide a site worthy of it. Yes, I was the first voice of dissent in this thread, and hope that a few can understand that threads such as this are not guaranteed all peaches and cream. I also don't believe that I would have given your site a look if not for someone else starting this thread and recommending your site as a good information source.

From what I have seen, no site about chameleons is without its flaws. Whether it be a variance from generally acceted opinions, to outright BS, its all out there. My site included. While I have recommended different sites to others new to the hobby, I always recommend several, mine included, so that the reader will get a feel for the variance in opinions. I think that you would do likewise. I do try to steer them towards the sites that I feel represent as much experience as is available. Examples would be Vince at Screameleons, the Kammers at Kammerflage, the Nozaki's at Amazing Blue, Alison at Chameleon Corral, Chris and Jason and others at the Ezine, Adcham, etc. I have particular preferences, but that is not what this is about. In all of those sites, the writer and sources of information are well documented.

Which again brings me to you. I do not question your right to say whatever you want in your site. That includes disclosure of who you are and what experience you base your views on. If much of it is obtained from others, and you choose to credit them, I do think it may appear awkward to some that you remain silent as to your identity. But this is not about "rights". It is not about any need to have achieved some level of credentials. That is for the reader to decide how much credence they put in what you have to say. It is about journalistic integrity in my opinion. The same goes for your coming to this forum and engaging me or others in a discussion. Simply put, and maybe speaking only for myself, I want to know who I am spending my time on, whether it be for pure help, debate, or constructive criticism. Fabian made the statement that who you are, and your experience and credentials, are not what is important, but rather your content. If a website on chameleons were only pictures, and devoid of opinion and conclusion, then maybe so. Like it or not, that's not what your website, or anyone's website, is about. Fabian's conclusion defies logic in my circles. I pointed out what I saw as some misleading and incomplete information in your site to demonstrate that it is not a simple matter of factually based info. I believe that you also understand this.

I do not doubt your sincerity in wanting to solicit and include the educated opinions of others. I saw no where what I would call a claim by you to know it all. That was also never my point. Its about having the temerity to author your work, and expose yourself to the evaluation of others. I will always maintain that it comes with the turf. Whether it be much of the very poor advice we see in places such as the Kingsnake forums, and yes there is some good advice there too, or in a website, the identification and credentials of the author of non-fiction is not an occasional thing. It as about as close to a journalistic absolute as one can get. While I seem to have upset some of the gallery, I also think that you get it. I wish you well up North.