Matt Miller of Matt Miller Reptiles. Lying about snakes that are his own.

Reading this BOI was a waste of 5 minutes of my life.
On a side note I better check my facebook photos and make sure I don't have any pics of snakes I have sold. Just in case....

Sooo...You no longer own the snake and you never owned the photos? Unless I'm missing something this all seems kind of petty.

Basically Jordan, that is the case.

Also, he never owned the snake Matt Miller did. He owned a male, and Matt owned a female ....

In this case, Matt happens to be well known/respected (though I, myself, only know "of him" but do not actually know him).
Also, in this case, the stories/ownership are true, for both parties, and it was a simple mistake of posting an incorrect photo.
I do not believe this warranted a Bad Guy thread (due to limited info/facts) and, after the fact, was needless (due to info that came out).

However, my take is that this thread was not started because of the use of photos (as some seem to think it was). It was started because someone (Matt) had stated he owned the snake in the very same time frame that someone else (the OP) had owned the snake.
Usually, someone posting a photo of a snake that they did not own, and claiming they did own it, would raise red flags. Even more so if they are asked (privately) about the photo and they ignore the person questioning them.
I don't know about anyone else but, if someone else claimed they owned a snake that I actually owned (or that I had owned in the same time frame as someone claiming they owned it), it would upset me.
Also, if someone claimed they owned a snake that they did not own (regardless of whether it was mine or not), it would raise red flags to me.
Thus, I can see the OP's point of view at the time he started this thread.

The great thing is that this can, now, be laid to rest (at least for my mind ) since it was not a case of someone claiming they owned a snake, that they did not own, and was, in fact, just a simple mistake of posting an incorrect photo (correct info/incorrect photo).

wow i seen a post about a guy my friends deal with and im interested in dealing with and wasted 20 minustes reading this to learn matt martin produced to purple tigers and pictures got confused (which the male purple is owned by personal friend amanda gentsy). in this bad guy thread which never gets deleted matt miller gets accused of basically copyright infringemnet of a photo not a bad guy topic if you ask me. on top of that on pages 1&3 the snake was hatched in 2008 and 2009 just to prove a point accidents happen and would it be fair to start a bad guy thread for the mixed up years.

Originally Posted by Pasodama

In this case, Matt happens to be well known/respected (though I, myself, only know "of him" but do not actually know him).
Also, in this case, the stories/ownership are true, for both parties, and it was a simple mistake of posting an incorrect photo.
I do not believe this warranted a Bad Guy thread (due to limited info/facts) and, after the fact, was needless (due to info that came out).

However, my take is that this thread was not started because of the use of photos (as some seem to think it was). It was started because someone (Matt) had stated he owned the snake in the very same time frame that someone else (the OP) had owned the snake.
Usually, someone posting a photo of a snake that they did not own, and claiming they did own it, would raise red flags. Even more so if they are asked (privately) about the photo and they ignore the person questioning them.
I don't know about anyone else but, if someone else claimed they owned a snake that I actually owned (or that I had owned in the same time frame as someone claiming they owned it), it would upset me.
Also, if someone claimed they owned a snake that they did not own (regardless of whether it was mine or not), it would raise red flags to me.
Thus, I can see the OP's point of view at the time he started this thread.

The great thing is that this can, now, be laid to rest (at least for my mind ) since it was not a case of someone claiming they owned a snake, that they did not own, and was, in fact, just a simple mistake of posting an incorrect photo (correct info/incorrect photo).

I think you may have missed the part where there are actually two snakes in question...One is a female and the other is a male. Both produced by the same guy and photos were taken by the same guy. I think Matt Miller either owned or owns the female, but posted a photo of the male by mistake? This is way more confusing than it should be, but it doesn't seem to me that Miller is a Bad Guy.

Sorry if I screwed any of the facts up.

Originally Posted by BigBoyzBoids

wow i seen a post about a guy my friends deal with and im interested in dealing with and wasted 20 minustes reading this to learn matt martin produced to purple tigers and pictures got confused (which the male purple is owned by personal friend amanda gentsy). in this bad guy thread which never gets deleted matt miller gets accused of basically copyright infringemnet of a photo not a bad guy topic if you ask me. on top of that on pages 1&3 the snake was hatched in 2008 and 2009 just to prove a point accidents happen and would it be fair to start a bad guy thread for the mixed up years.

Sorry...I didn't read the end of your post.

Originally Posted by Pasodama

The great thing is that this can, now, be laid to rest (at least for my mind ) since it was not a case of someone claiming they owned a snake, that they did not own, and was, in fact, just a simple mistake of posting an incorrect photo (correct info/incorrect photo).

Edit: I'm on a roll here! This is the part I overlooked.

Originally Posted by DemmBalls

I think you may have missed the part where there are actually two snakes in question.

I didn't miss that part.
The OP owned a male and Matt owned a female.
Matt posted the correct info (he did own that female) but posted the incorrect photo (the photo was of the OP's male snake).