Ty park/ ty lizards FL

Originally Posted by FresnoTortoise

Sadly this post has turned into a facebook vs. Fauna battle in addition to the op vs Ty issue. Sadly this turns into more name calling than anything else. in 5 years fauna will be gone, before fauna there was yahoo groups. Nothing is forever. In another 5 years many of the old timers here will be dead. It is up to u to decide what is good or bad. To me, a little conservation is good.

Actually, I would call it a battle between those that want to be accurately informed and those that want to remain willfully ignorant.

FB will never replace Fauna in my book because of how the BOI operates (ie post cannot be edited or deleted). FB doesn't have that, thus you have private little echo chambers where opposing views are deleted and the person posting is banned **cough** Ty Parks page **cough**.

Dont forget people, the actual raffle drawing itself was conducted in Arizona.

Originally Posted by Donald C

Actually, I would call it a battle between those that want to be accurately informed and those that want to remain willfully ignorant.

FB will never replace Fauna in my book because of how the BOI operates (ie post cannot be edited or deleted). FB doesn't have that, thus you have private little echo chambers where opposing views are deleted and the person posting is banned **cough** Ty Parks page **cough**.

On facebook business page, I am pretty sure reviews can't be deleted or edited except by person writing it.

I am not ignorant, a fair prize was refused by OP.

Originally Posted by FresnoTortoise

On facebook business page, I am pretty sure reviews can't be deleted or edited except by person writing it.

I am not ignorant, a fair prize was refused by OP.

To be fair, Ming, the ignorant comment was not directed at you. That is, in my opinion, reserved for those that rely only on Ty's FB page for info on this situation.

Those that fail to observe all sides fall under that category. You're here, so that prevents you from receiving falling under that particular label.

In Florida civil cases, only the defendant has the option to choose whom shall hear the case, a jury or a judge. The plaintiff has no say so.

Originally Posted by Robert Potts

In Florida civil cases, only the defendant has the option to choose whom shall hear the case, a jury or a judge. The plaintiff has no say so.

I'm sorry. Not to argue but that is incorrect.
Even on the form 1.997 civil cover sheet has an option to check off for. A jury trial.
Most people who file these type of cases do request jury trials.

And he was pro se up untill may 24 2017

"Turtle Slave", "Ming Wing", "Turtle Man", "Minion", "King Kong"...
You folks that keep calling Ming names are really showing a lack of class.

Class.... that shows class and restraint. Ming is here to troll because there is no way someone cab be this ignorant. So when you show to troll, you get what you get.

My apologies, for some reason I thought only the defendant in a civil case in Florida had the option to choose. Obviously I stand corrected. Best of luck. Take care.

I'm another reader who doesn't post here often. This topic has been hashed and rehashed but there comes a time when more voices need to speak.

After reading every post, my conclusion is that Michelle deserves her prize per the terms of the raffle as originally offered. I see nothing but truth supported by documentation from Michelle. The truth is also the best defense to any claims of defamation.

Mr. Park and the IRCF that benefited from the raffle never put forth the terms that they will award the afore mentioned prize to the winning ticket holder unless for some subjective reason they don't like her or have decided she is greedy. When the promised Tegu was not bred by Mr. Park, the alternate monetary award should have been sent in a timely manner. The game playing with the purple vs. blue and trying to obtain a Tegu as a prize from other breeders is, to say the least, distasteful.

The "greed testing" of Michelle is outrageous and manipulative in my opinion. It is not greedy to expect the other party to fulfill an accepted offer, especially when that other party set the terms of the offer in the first place.

If this had been an outright purchase for an agreed to monetary consideration with the same "tegu or money" terms stated in advance, there would be no question of a bad guy rating until or unless it was made right. To me this is a separate issue from any good works done by Mr. Park and the IRCF past, present, or future. Sadly, good works lose their luster when tainted by actions of bad faith.

Best wishes Michelle.