• In case most of you have not noticed, I made changes to the donation amounts as well as the durations for all of the paid membership levels. Things are winding down here, and this seems to be the most prudent way to deal with the "end of life" period of this site.

    Contributor level members - $10 per 30 days
    Sponsors - Eliminated
    Benefactor level members - $25 per 30 days
    Endowment level members - $50 per 30 days

    Account Upgrades Page
  • Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

Bad Guy SCAMMER!!! Jay Mcnight / Jason Ciconne/ Franklin Chams Chams/SCAMMER

Craig, on June 29th, to whom did you send the email with photos of chameleons which are among those in question?

Maybe attaching a screenshot of that email would help, too. I am curious.
 
ElexisOrtiz said:
So if the original report says tomorrow or Tuesdays date, I will believe they received healthy chams and let them develop that disease to further their scam. Unless the vet actually says it's very severe and could not have progressed that much in that short amount of time, but somehow I doubt that will happen. We've all asked them several questions left unanswered.

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I highly doubt they still have the chameleons. That's why they have not provided pics or video this whole time. Read the texts Craig posted. Jay had a show in 2 weeks when he bought them. That was a month and a half ago and has showed us one piece of evidence suggesting they are still in his possession.

That's why I don't believe Craig will ever see the chams, but hopefully gets his money.
 
ElexisOrtiz said:
So if the original report says tomorrow or Tuesdays date, I will believe they received healthy chams and let them develop that disease to further their scam. Unless the vet actually says it's very severe and could not have progressed that much in that short amount of time, but somehow I doubt that will happen. We've all asked them several questions left unanswered.

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I would be under the same assumption as you. However, I don't see why they wouldn't have sent them back when they first got them if the MBD was as severe as they're making it sound.
 
Bbcatcher said:
I would be under the same assumption as you. However, I don't see why they wouldn't have sent them back when they first got them if the MBD was as severe as they're making it sound.
Click to expand...
As I said before, I wouldn't send back sick animals, chances are they would remain sick and sent to someone else, I would want compensation for the vet bills though

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk
 
nickolasanastasiou said:
Craig, on June 29th, to whom did you send the email with photos of chameleons which are among those in question?

Maybe attaching a screenshot of that email would help, too. I am curious.
Click to expand...

By now I know better than to ignore any questions. So I'm going to address this the best way I can.
I can't find a single email from back then.
Here are my search results
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    84.3 KB · Views: 208
Guys I'm pretty sure I'm all tapped out of evidence. Wish I just video recorder everything when I did the deal. Would have been much much easier than it is now. I'll still do my best to continue to answer more questions. But at this point I'm like a rock. It's going to be hard to squeeze anymore juice out me. But keep asking if a question arises in your head and I'll do my very best to keep answering.
At this point i am glad that I was able to answer pretty much everything so far. I figured when I made my initial post I missed some details. Because you guys asked all those questions you guys made it 10 times clearer to make my case as it sits now.
 
Craig Wyatt said:
Guys I'm pretty sure I'm all tapped out of evidence. Wish I just video recorder everything when I did the deal. Would have been much much easier than it is now. I'll still do my best to continue to answer more questions. But at this point I'm like a rock. It's going to be hard to squeeze anymore juice out me. But keep asking if a question arises in your head and I'll do my very best to keep answering.
At this point i am glad that I was able to answer pretty much everything so far. I figured when I made my initial post I missed some details. Because you guys asked all those questions you guys made it 10 times clearer to make my case as it sits now.
Click to expand...

nickolasanastasiou said:
Instead of that, go to your sent folder and look at the sent messages from June 29th of this year.
Click to expand...

This was probably overlooked in the process of posting the images.
 
ElexisOrtiz said:
As I said before, I wouldn't send back sick animals, chances are they would remain sick and sent to someone else, I would want compensation for the vet bills though

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Why would you think that you have that option? If you complain about received animals, and the seller says "send them back & I'll refund your payment", you don't get to say "no, I'm going to keep them; and you're going to pay the vet bills".
It might work occasionally, if the seller thinks that's the best option for keeping you happy; but they certainly aren't obligated to concede to your terms.
 
hhmoore said:
Why would you think that you have that option? If you complain about received animals, and the seller says "send them back & I'll refund your payment", you don't get to say "no, I'm going to keep them; and you're going to pay the vet bills".
It might work occasionally, if the seller thinks that's the best option for keeping you happy; but they certainly aren't obligated to concede to your terms.
Click to expand...

:exactly: I was just going to comment on that.

ElexisOrtiz said:
As I said before, I wouldn't send back sick animals, chances are they would remain sick and sent to someone else, I would want compensation for the vet bills though

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You don't get to make your own terms. It's only if the seller gives you that option that it would be plausible to ask for vet compensation. If not, then you either keep the animals and do without, or send the animals back. Now if you were to take the seller to court, that doesn't guarantee that they will have to pay for anything, and you more than likely will be told to give the animals back in order to receive your money back. But you don't get to decide your own terms for transactions. I know they're animals, but they're still a "Transaction" and would be treated as such.
 
nickolasanastasiou said:
This was probably overlooked in the process of posting the images.
Click to expand...

Ok I'm an idiot. Thanks Nick for pointing that out!! Lol jk
I told you guys several times I'm not a computer type of guy only Internet.
Ok I checked and changed it from regular email search then I went into sent. Totally different thing. Never knew that until just now. Found um.
Hold on a sec. I'll start posting. And just to be extra clear Jay said if I change out a single animal no deal.
I found that 4th tamatave too. Along with all the ambilobis. When you guys see the ambilobis there is 2 pics per animal. I showed both sides of each animal.
 
hhmoore said:
Why would you think that you have that option? If you complain about received animals, and the seller says "send them back & I'll refund your payment", you don't get to say "no, I'm going to keep them; and you're going to pay the vet bills".
It might work occasionally, if the seller thinks that's the best option for keeping you happy; but they certainly aren't obligated to concede to your terms.
Click to expand...
I never said I was entitled to it, just saying I would want that, not that that's necessarily what would happen. If they weren't willing then oh well but either they paid the vet themselves to resell it or they sell it again sick. Some knowingly send sick animals then act surprised when it's noticed. Others make mistakes, but I never said I thought I should be entitled to that

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top