Bad Guy Dillon and Rick Wascher, www.safedartfrogs.com

[ZooKeeperDoug]

Now you're just being melodramatic. It takes seconds to find. General discussion. Wascher thread only about 3 posts down. But you knew that. You are the busiest composer on that thread, lol. Again, nice try.

I meant the specific post you mentioned. I assumed it was in the original thread, but you're right, it is on the first page of the new thread.

And having no read it, there are other sentiments and suggestions therein, other than harassing them.

I've long been one who actually thinks Dillion is a smart kid and that it is his father who has steered him in the wrong direction. I've advocated several times to try and reach out to Dillion, to see if we can talk some sense into him.

It was that notion specifically expressed in that thread, to "talk to poor Dillion" that I "liked".

For the record, I wouldn't condone harassing them, but I have no problem with people attending shows where they vend and asking them in person the hard questions they dodge repeatedly. It's easy to hide behind a website and Hang up on people who call, but when you're face to face with someone it's much harder to lie to their face, especially when you don't know wtf you're talking about in the first place.

 

[ZooKeeperDoug]

Actually, I have no axe to grind with DB. There is some good old info there that is of benefit to newcomers to the hobby. Sadly, all the current focus is on rants about DFC then DFW. Pumilio (Doug) has alot of good ideas, and he shares them. The Sherman vent came from DB. Well, Sherman. But then he posted on DB. And that is what DB is for.

As to your proof that you can't post...I GIVE MY PERMISSION TO DOUG PETRANOFF TO POST SAID INFO FOR THE PROOF HE NEEDS.

Show that to a mod and post away. Because what I posted was the PM Scott sent me, demanding the name of the person I said Justin ripped off. Guess what? He ripped off a bunch more since. So there is my proof of what I stated about the mods protecting him

No need now, you just admitted to it. That's a clear violation of the DB User Agreement and why you were banned. End of subject.

 

[Scott Richardson]

That's your big proof??? I said that myself in the other thread. You really are stretching trying to discredit people.

 

[ZooKeeperDoug]

That's your big proof??? I said that myself in the other thread. You really are stretching trying to discredit people.

No need to try at all, you discredit yourself. You only fessed up to the truth when Scott had to come here and defend himself from your libelous statements.

 

[Scott Richardson]

You must have a different computer, because my very first comment on page one mentions me being banned and the private message.

 

[laterob]

I hate it when drama from other boards spills over here. Each new post further confirms this thread is unwarranted.

 

[Chris Kennard]

I meant the specific post you mentioned. I assumed it was in the original thread, but you're right, it is on the first page of the new thread.

And having no read it, there are other sentiments and suggestions therein, other than harassing them.

I've long been one who actually thinks Dillion is a smart kid and that it is his father who has steered him in the wrong direction. I've advocated several times to try and reach out to Dillion, to see if we can talk some sense into him.

It was that notion specifically expressed in that thread, to "talk to poor Dillion" that I "liked".

For the record, I wouldn't condone harassing them, but I have no problem with people attending shows where they vend and asking them in pterson the hard questions they dodge repeatedly. It's easy to hide behind a website and Hang up on people who call, but when you're face to face with someone it's much harder to lie to their face, especially when you don't know wtf you're talking about in the first place.

Fair enough. I have to give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to that post. On the other hand, the wrong direction in your mind may not be the wrong direction in their minds. Who are you interfere, or as you call it, reach out to Dillion? Has their business affected or infected your collection? No. Their business is none of yours. And if you or anyone else goes to their table at a show for the expressed reason of instigating with no intent to purchase anything, that is harassment as well.

 

[Scott Richardson]

I hate it when drama from other boards spills over here. Each new post further confirms this thread is unwarranted.

Ah, you haven't seen the proof yet.

 

[Chris Kennard]

I hate it when drama from other boards spills over here. Each new post further confirms this thread is unwarranted.

It may be warranted with regard to the inciting of public harassment in an open forum. The Waschers' have been notified. Good luck DB.

 

[ZooKeeperDoug]

You must have a different computer, because my very first comment on page one mentions me being banned and the private message.

Jasper,
He is protected on Dendroboard. I was threatened by a mod named Scott on Dendroboard with an infraction if I spoke ill of Justin. Scott said Justin was a good source of frogs, and made some mistakes in the past. There is negative feedback on Dendroboard for Justin now, but Scott will delete it when he sees it. They want to make it look like a past issue. I informed him of a conversation I had with a member and he again threatened me with a ban this time if I didn't give him the name of the member. I took the 2 week ban. He doesn't need to harass the other member. He said I was slandering Justin. And he wanted the name of the person I talked to. Well, for one, it was in a private message, and for two, I never used Justin's name. He did. It was never in public. He doesn't need to speak with the other member, there are enough recent complaints to read.
What it really comes down to is there is a group on Dendroboard that care more about getting rare frogs imported for them and less about members of the hobby being harmed. Until it happens to them. We aren't oblivious to what he does, we just have our comments deleted so you don't see them

As quoted from that thread. No where in this post do you say you were banned for posting a private message between you and a mod in public. (You imply you were banned for two weeks for refusing to name some member)You didn't admit the actual reason for the ban until Scott came and cleared his name and exposed your lie.

Furthermore, you, I, Scott and anyone else who saw it know that it wasn't nearly as incendiary or damning as you claim. In fact, it wasn't at all. It actually made you look bad, not him.



This thread is about the Wascher's and has been derailed enough again. I won't engage you further in a cyclical argument.

 

[Scott Richardson]

I don't want you to. I want to see this proof just like everyone else

 

[LauraB]

For a bunch of people who whined and complained about this being the BOI and a business forum and how the DB threads are irrelevant etc, you sure have taken quite an interest.

And for one guy who has all of 24 posts here, all bashing regular Fauna users and others expressing differing opinions, you also have taken quite a questionable interest. And yes, this is a business/transaction forum. Have you done business with the Waschers?

Quite a few people saw what you posted that was edited by a mod, lucky for you.

So, in essence, DB posts are edited by Mods to reflect only what is considered acceptable, tolerable and "pretty"?

So, no ugly freedom of speech there, even within the confines of the rules? A DB Mod can edit my post there even if it's PG and articulate, based on a valid complaint, just because a favored niche may not agree? Wow.

I never said your statement about bringing legal action was a lie. Yes, of course it was brought up, and it was a stupid as hell idea that most people shot down. How convenient of you to leave that fact out though. Just a little lie of omission there.

Cracking up here! The mere fact that legal action was even brought up and had to be discussed and shot down is ludicrous! It wasn't convenient that
Scott left that fact (that it got shot down) out... it's hysterical and telling that it was even brought up in the first place!

You're someone who has an obvious agenda against DB and who will twist the facts in a failed attempt to make your case. I am however glad you've found this forum to embarrass yourself on as well. Yawn.

It's your constant sniveling and crying and bring up DB all the time that makes you a whiner.

And you're someone who has an obvious agenda supporting DB and who will twist facts in yet another failed attempt to make your case. I'm also happy you've been here to embarrass yourself and whine in defense of DB and the OP, who has no case or facts ... and who only brought this drama and crap here from DB because DB was obviously sick of it as well, hence the locking of the original thread and creation of the newest one.

This thread is NOT about DB. If there is proof of theft or scam by the Waschers, bring it on. Don't just tell us to go back and read 175 pages of opinions and mob-mentality.

And please stop with back-and-forth personal spilling over of DB drama. Geez ...

 

[ZooKeeperDoug]

Fair enough. I have to give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to that post. On the other hand, the wrong direction in your mind may not be the wrong direction in their minds. Who are you interfere, or as you call it, reach out to Dillion? Has their business affected or infected your collection? No. Their business is none of yours. And if you or anyone else goes to their table at a show for the expressed reason of instigating with no intent to purchase anything, that is harassment as well.

Who says I can't reach out to him and try? Each of us attempts to influence the direction of our hobby as we see fit. I see no reason why if I couldn't separate him from his father, why I couldn't at least convince him not to abandon many of their fallacious claims(safe, no quarantine, The MP issue, hybrids, crosses, the stupid trade park names, etc.)

It hasn't directly yet, but I have no doubt that it will. It certainly has the potential to, and that's what were fighting against. Unless you understand us and our hobby, I don't know that I have the patience or capacity to explain this further to you. It is far to complicated and nuanced to describe in a few sentences as has been suggested.

I will interfere as I see fit. At this point, all it amounts to is information and awareness. If anyone informs them self and still buys from the Wascher's., well, can't fix stupid.

I am free to express the opinion that hybrids and crosses are bad for the hobby. I am free to explain what practices of theirs as it relates to proper husbandry are untrue. Examples have already been given previously in this thread by Ed, myself, and Mark. I have a problem with people who lie and spread misinformation in an attempt to discredit reputable and responsible breeders for the express intent of gaining an advantage over them.

You may assert your last point with the semantics you chosen and you'ld be correct. However, this is a strawman, intending to infer intent. I needn't defend against something I didn't say or imply.

 

[ZooKeeperDoug]

And for one guy who has all of 24 posts here, all bashing regular Fauna users and others expressing differing opinions, you also have taken quite a questionable interest. And yes, this is a business/transaction forum. Have you done business with the Waschers?

I haven't bashed anyone.

No, I have not. Neither has the OP, which is why this discussion doesn't belong here. We don't need to go round and round about that again now do we?

So, in essence, DB posts are edited by Mods to reflect only what is considered acceptable, tolerable and "pretty"?

So, no ugly freedom of speech there, even within the confines of the rules? A DB Mod can edit my post there even if it's PG and articulate, based on a valid complaint, just because a favored niche may not agree? Wow.

Yes pretty much. And you may be surprised I actually agree with you. I don't like that mods edit things. However, it is what it is, and it something you either accept or refuse to participate in. I've gotten into it with a number of mods over editing of posts, especially Scott, and were "friends".

Unfortunately it seems you have the typical notion of free speech that is incorrect. DB is a private forum, as such, free speech doesn't apply. You're subject to their rules or free to not participate and speak elsewhere, but your first amendment rights have not been infringed. The same thing happens here, albeit a lot less frequently.

Cracking up here! The mere fact that legal action was even brought up and had to be discussed and shot down is ludicrous! It wasn't convenient that
Scott left that fact (that it got shot down) out... it's hysterical and telling that it was even brought up in the first place!

I agree, absolutely. It is completely indefensible and ludicrous. It should have never been brought up in the first place. Your absolutely right on this, it was indefensible.

And you're someone who has an obvious agenda supporting DB and who will twist facts in yet another failed attempt to make your case. I'm also happy you've been here to embarrass yourself and whine in defense of DB and the OP, who has no case or facts ... and who only brought this drama and crap here from DB because DB was obviously sick of it as well, hence the locking of the original thread and creation of the newest one.

Except I don't deny my agenda. I have twisted no facts. I absolutely do not defend the OP or him bringing this here. I've openly condemned it actually. I think he has done far more harm than good actually. He hasn't made a case at all or attempted to provide facts. Some of us tried to clean up his damn mess but the damage is done. Anyone of us could have done a much better job from the start, but now it has snowballed. You're free to think that I've failed to make a case, but that is simply your opinion. I have absolutely zero faith in your ability to form an objective opinion on the subject now. But why would you, you're entirely intent on everything being adversarial and personal and petty attacks.

The thread got locked, so what. It was in the wrong forum at the time, needed some cooling off time, then restarted. Big freaking deal. It is still going with almost unanimous condemnation of the Wascher's.

 

[LauraB]

So, may I ask clearly and succinctly. Are the Wascher's committing fraud when they claim their Darts to be safe? Like non-toxic?

 

[LauraB]

And only the DB haters have an obvious vendetta and post malicious, speculative and hateful comments about the Waschers?

 

[LauraB]

DB is a private forum, as such, free speech doesn't apply.

Private, like you gotta sign up? Yeah, I signed up at DB a long time ago. LMAO.

Fauna is too, a "private world-wide-website". However, Mods don't edit my posts (though I do get infractions for them ) And posts are never removed. That is free speech. [/b]

 

[ZooKeeperDoug]

So, may I ask clearly and succinctly. Are the Wascher's committing fraud when they claim their Darts to be safe? Like non-toxic?

When they use the word Safe? Not exactly. They claim they use the term safe as a trademark only, and that it isn't intended to be descriptive, which anyone knows is bullshit. It's deceptive. And used intentionally to convince people that their frogs are safe and that one should spend money on them. So by definition.

Fraud

1
a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

But when they use terms like

Completely Harmless


They are intentionally misrepresenting the truth. As has been well established early on in this thread, there is some inherent risk involved in keeping any exotic species. Even fauna members have mockingly, but at the same time proving the point, suggested some common sense. Therefore, one cannot responsibly call them Completely harmless. They're making these claims, as they state their research shows, many people won't purchase darts if they're not assured that they are harmless, safe, non toxic. They use these terms deceptively to induce, consumers to part with something of value, when they otherwise would not.

It is completely irresponsible of anyone to claim any exotic, or even domestic animal is completely harmless. It is blatantly false and potentially damaging.

As for Toxic, we can't be completely sure. They claim 100% non toxic! however; several reserve studies have show that Dendrobatids still produce limited alkaloids and peptides even in captivity. They are by no means nearly as toxic as those in the wild, but they are NOT completely non toxic,

The Wascher's claim their research refutes this, but despite requests to provide evidence or proof of their frogs non toxic nature. They refused. Why if you were so sure your frogs are not toxic, wouldn't you want to prove it. Spare me the nothing to prove defense. Burden of proof falls on the one making the initial claim, in this case, them claiming non toxic.

 

[LauraB]

Poop ... accidentally hit "Post" before reviewing.

 

[Scott Richardson]

So, may I ask clearly and succinctly. Are the Wascher's committing fraud when they claim their Darts to be safe? Like non-toxic?

Not in the context they go on to explain why they are safe, no. Is it an accurate assesment? Could be.
They are correct in their claims that the frogs poison comes from their diet in the wild and captive bred frogs raised on fruit flies lack this poison.
Can handling them and putting your fingers in your mouth make you sick? Sure. Can the same be said with a bearded dragon, snake, gecko, etc. sure.

Are their frogs any safer than any other captive bred frog? No.
It is a marketing gimmick plain and simple. They assert that studies show people don't buy the frogs because they are poisonous. The Wascher's are alleviating fear by explaining it. To the rest of us, it seems silly.