Durante
New member
Well intended, but inaccurate. It's fine to say he had a witness without naming him...as long as he isn't attributing statements to, or information provided by, an unnamed source.
I don't doubt I'm wrong but cant honestly say I fully understand. I was under the impression by stating he had a witness to the mites that it was basically the same as an unnamed source attributing a statement about the snake having mites.
Nothing odd about it at all, really. Not every keeper welcomes strangers into his/her home, after all...and that isn't necessarily related to the value of one's collection, or having something in it to hide. On the very rare instances I have allowed a buyer to come to my home, I have always had the animals in question contained and kept in a common room...and I decline requests to see the rest of my collection, or my setup. If somebody takes issue with that, I'll apologize as I see them to the door. (Rather than remorse over the loss of a sale, I would wonder why the heck I let him come to my house in the first place...and probably vow not to make that mistake again.)
Very True. It's 100% the sellers right to keep his personal things private, especially in his own home. I totally understand your stance & agree with it considering all the dangers involved. I didn't mean I thought it was weird he wouldn't show him his whole collection. Lots of people aren't trust worthy & don't need to see or know what you have around that's non-related to the animal for sale. At the same time though & I know it's not the exact same thing I do think the seller is obligated to disclose information related to the animal for sale. I'd personally want to know as much as possible about about the animal I'm buying & that includes everything genetic papers, enclosure set up, shed/feeding habits & records, & length of possession, etc.