Ty park/ ty lizards FL

Originally Posted by Robert Walker

The answer to my Tegu Y question carries no weight on what I think is right or wrong in this situation, it only holds relevance to where my sympathy for the participants may lay or not. Disagreeing with one doesn't mean I have to agree with the other. Less sympathy for one does automatically transfer it to the other participant.

Pretending that Tegu Y did in fact exist and Michelle could have actually received it, my personal feelings currently are...

Right vs. Wrong:
Ty promised Tegu X or $3,000, however he only offered Tegu Y, thus putting him in the wrong and landing Michelle in the right.

Sympathy Vote:
Life is not fair and as adults most of us have seen this play out many times over. Realizing life isn't always fair, there are times when it is better to take what you can get out of a bad/wrong situation, cut your loses and leave. This doesn't make it right, it just makes it the reality of life. If Michelle goes to court and loses everything, it doesn't make it right, its just part of life...things aren't always fair. Realizing that the situation between her and Mr. Park had soured to where it did, I would have taken Tegu Y, and then started the BOI thread. Because of this strategic fumble, her refusal to compromise, her repetitively long and exhausting posts here* my sympathy for her situation is lacking, but not non-existent.

My sympathy is ALSO lacking for Mr. Park as well. I wish them both the best, but really have little sympathy for either right now.

*I don't always have the luxury of just avoiding threads I don't care to read.

here ya go Jamie...

Are we into uncharted territory? Over one half a million views. Crazy!

Originally Posted by thomas davis

here ya go Jamie...

Robert, by letter of the terms, concluded that Michelle was in the right and Ty was in the wrong.

Then he went on to speak to his perspective. His included consideration for the weighing of sacrifices involved. Robert offered what he would have done and how he felt about it as well as how he felt about the presentation of information. He was not stating a mandate of what Michelle must do or anything like that, but it was a window into his perspective that he shared with us. When I have been faced with making choices in a particular past environment within which I had to effectively operate, my superiors would demand of me to declare the choice of what is best. That is mental framing. I told them I could not abide by the request as framed, but I could decide upon which of our go-forward choices was, as I reframed it according to my viewpoint, least worst. What is the difference? The outcome of the choice can sometimes be similar, but the approach to the choice originates differently. From what I read of Robert's posting, he was, while considering risk, reframing things in his perspective in the context of the "least worst" that I spoke of. On this topic, his perspective and mine were not completely aligned, but I valued his thoughts as much as my own and I thought them through accordingly. I know it ruffled feathers for some, but it did not ruffle mine and I would rather it be shared than withheld. I think the counterpoints were reasonable so as to not settle too comfortably into what might be considered certain. Especially with the element of external parties having decision-making power over the outcome. There was room for considering more than a binary decision.

The echo chamber was identified as an environmental weakness for one party, so by having the benefit of multiple perspectives, the other party was able to consider counterpoints and then brace for the possibility of them being used. I find value in that. How is strength of belief tempered if untested? The challenge drives us to become stronger.

Originally Posted by tcp2

Are we into uncharted territory? Over one half a million views. Crazy!

Yep, into uncharted territory.
Although there are a few threads, that come close to half a million views, it appears this thread currently holds the position of most views in all of BOI history.

~~~~

As an FYI the court has now posted the documents through the trial date.

http://www.co.charlotte.fl.us/Default.aspx

In the left menu under "Online Services" click on "Court Records - Search"

Case # is 17000266CA.

My opinion regarding this matter is no different today. I have never had much sympathy for either side, and for the most part thought both parties deserved each other. For me these sentiments still ring true. Seeing the disclosed outcome only reinforces this for me. There are times in life when I value my: family, time, sleep, sanity, financial security, etc. far more than I need to chase after a perceived 'win'.

While I may admire someone's efforts at not giving up, I don't consider this an actual win for either side, I only see two individuals who have lost. 2.5 years gone, no court can restore that and for what? To be declared the 'winner' and have online minions 'relish your victory'? 2.5 "long and drawn out" years so you can earn <$15 a day, not including your out of pocket expenses yet.

Any other person who worked at a U.S. job for 2.5 years at <$15 a day, irregular hours, paid their own expenses, still had to collect all their back wages, would be called an array of titles, "winner" not being one of them.

I'll have to try to open them later. They are downloading blank.

Robert
Rarely have I ever had cause to disagree with your posts and or statements but unfortunately this is one time I do.
While I see the points you are making as basic facts regarding money, time etc I truly do not believe they are the underlying main considerations here.
Principles and proving that the "high and mighty" are not beyond reproach might possibly have been worth it to myself too.
I still commend Michelle for her actions here and think it can only do the herping community in general nothing but good.
Of course you are entitled to your opinions and I respect them deeply.
Just in this instance I find myself leaning in completely the opposite direction.

No offense meant and hopefully none taken.

Originally Posted by Black Adder

No offense meant and hopefully none taken.

No offense taken at all Kevin, thanks.
Differing opinions are welcome for the various reasons as Nick previously discussed.

If this case had involved, sticking it to the man over say: poisoned drinking water, child molestation, murder, rape, armed robbery, wrongful death etc. I could both understand and support the relentlessness drive that might come forth to seek justice, even at the expense of one's own health, time, money, etc.

I'm sorry, but I just don't view an argument (by both sides) over a 'lizard' worthy of such intense, resource draining consideration.

Originally Posted by Robert Walker

No offense taken at all Kevin, thanks.
Differing opinions are welcome for the various reasons as Nick previously discussed.

If this case had involved, sticking it to the man over say: poisoned drinking water, child molestation, murder, rape, armed robbery, wrongful death etc. I could both understand and support the relentlessness drive that might come forth to seek justice, even at the expense of one's own health, time, money, etc.

I'm sorry, but I just don't view an argument (by both sides) over a 'lizard' worthy of such intense, resource draining consideration.

Seems to me that there was a whole lot more PRINCIPLE involved here than the material matter of a $3,000 prize lizard being at stake.

In Michelle's defense, and in my personal opinion, I find it encouraging that the human species still has "Davids" willing to stand up to "Goliaths", no matter what the cost.

IMHO.