• 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.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Inquiry Underground Reptiles: Sick animal inquiry?

Thanks for updating Joe, and I'm sorry to hear that the SFD was confirmed. And thank you for having the courage to be the one to stand up and call this out. I know it's not easy to speak out, and there will always be those who disagree.

Open question to all: what does this mean for UR and other sellers? And for all of us, really? This goes beyond the usual parasites that WC snakes could carry and could (and apparently is) spreading into collections. I can't even imagine what a big seller would have to undertake to clear the infection out of a large facility.

A voluntary halt to the collection and sale of wild caught water snakes would be a start, I think. Better to be proactive and have safeguards already in place, than be caught unaware by legislation while pretending SFD doesn't exist.

I don't blame UR or anyone else, and I don't think the OP does either. But now that we know SFD is spreading like this, I think there is a responsibility going forward to not do things that spread this further. If they or any other seller choose to ignore this situation from now on, and continue to spread a contagious disease then that is a sad day for this industry, and our snakes.
 
thamnophis123 said:
There have been no confirmed cases of bSAL in the US, primarily because of the blanket ban. Seems like a recipe for effective intervention to me.
Click to expand...

"I use these toothpicks to keep elephants out of my garden."

"There are no elephants here? Well then it seems like the toothpicks are working very well!"
 
tlmoon said:
Thanks for updating Joe, and I'm sorry to hear that the SFD was confirmed. And thank you for having the courage to be the one to stand up and call this out. I know it's not easy to speak out, and there will always be those who disagree.

Open question to all: what does this mean for UR and other sellers? And for all of us, really? This goes beyond the usual parasites that WC snakes could carry and could (and apparently is) spreading into collections. I can't even imagine what a big seller would have to undertake to clear the infection out of a large facility.
A voluntary halt to the collection and sale of wild caught water snakes would be a start, I think. Better to be proactive and have safeguards already in place, than be caught unaware by legislation while pretending SFD doesn't exist.

I don't blame UR or anyone else, and I don't think the OP does either. But now that we know SFD is spreading like this, I think there is a responsibility going forward to not do things that spread this further. If they or any other seller choose to ignore this situation from now on, and continue to spread a contagious disease then that is a sad day for this industry, and our snakes.
Click to expand...

Judging by past history, as my comment earlier pointed out, a blanket ban on the intrastate transfer of snakes known to host SFD. The LACEY act has been the preferred tool to combat any sort of "injurious" threat to native wildlife.
 
NathanKS said:
Judging by past history, as my comment earlier pointed out, a blanket ban on the intrastate transfer of snakes known to host SFD. The LACEY act has been the preferred tool to combat any sort of "injurious" threat to native wildlife.
Click to expand...
I think you meant "interstate".
 
Nathanks, just a clarification. The Lacy Act refers to what is prohibited either here or even in the country of origin. Not what is injurious as a threat to native wildlife. We do however have other agencies that handle that part . More toward law enforcement and health. JERRY
 
nickolasanastasiou said:
Since you appear beset by difficulties of comprehension, feel free to spend the time looking up circular reasoning if you feel so inclined.
Click to expand...

That seems to be a bit of a harsh retort. Specifically, "beset by difficulties of comprehension". Personally, I am not beset by such difficulties and it sounds to me like your implying something less than complimentary about Mr. Monahan.
 
tim brophy said:
That seems to be a bit of a harsh retort. Specifically, "beset by difficulties of comprehension". Personally, I am not beset by such difficulties and it sounds to me like your implying something less than complimentary about Mr. Monahan.
Click to expand...

Based on my attempts at level conversation with him, he has been either deliberately obtuse or he truly does have difficulties comprehending matters discussed. The latter is really the most kind situation, as it would mean it is not his fault (or at least not his intent).

However, when repeatedly wanting to know how he can skirt rules to lob insults at other members rather than focus on his own behavior, the deliberate possibility strengthens in apparent probability.
 
"the deliberate possibility strengthens in apparent probability"?
Frankly, I am also beset by difficulties of comprehension. I have difficulties comprehending pretentious writing.
 
nickolasanastasiou said:
However, when repeatedly wanting to know how he can skirt rules to lob insults at other members rather than focus on his own behavior, the deliberate possibility strengthens in apparent probability.
Click to expand...

You see, Nick already knows how to lob insults while not running afoul of the rules. Its seems he's pretty lenient with both himself and his buddies.

I suppose he doesn't dare share details, lest he be tripped up by them ;-)
 
thamnophis123 said:
Able to make the assertion, but not able to defend it?
Click to expand...

No. However, I know from communicating with you that you waste time like a child asking why after being given the reason...repeatedly. I also know that you falsely characterize events (exaggerate and/or lie). As such, humoring your immaturity (and at times maliciousness) is not at the top of my to-do list.

Your assertion:

There have been no confirmed cases of bSAL in the US, primarily because of the blanket ban. Seems like a recipe for effective intervention to me.
Click to expand...

My assertion:

Circular.
Click to expand...

There was not the feared effect. A practice was put into place. As before, there was still not the feared effect. To attribute that which was not taking place before to that which came after has no evidence. You asserted that the primary cause was the ban. The "evidence" for which is? The lack of confirmed cases. Which was already the case prior to the ban. As such, it is circular.
 
tim brophy said:
"the deliberate possibility strengthens in apparent probability"?
Frankly, I am also beset by difficulties of comprehension. I have difficulties comprehending pretentious writing.
Click to expand...

I will rephrase to compensate for that.

His communications indicate that he is intentionally trying to be obtuse when "not understanding" the rules that are explained to him. That shifts the benefit of the doubt that would support an unwilled lacked of understanding to a willful pretending not to understand. That means it has become increasingly obvious that he is by no means trying to understand in the first place. His only focus has been on how to avoid punishment rather than avoid what leads to punishment.
 
thamnophis123 said:
You see, Nick already knows how to lob insults while not running afoul of the rules. Its seems he's pretty lenient with both himself and his buddies.

I suppose he doesn't dare share details, lest he be tripped up by them ;-)
Click to expand...

You have outright asked how to make false accusations about another member and get away with it on here and I told you it is not my role to enable that.

I am not sorry that I would not assist your stated desire to lie about and attack another member in such a way.
 
nickolasanastasiou said:
His communications indicate that he is intentionally trying to be obtuse when "not understanding" the rules that are explained to him.
Click to expand...

Not really Nick. I asked how you (as a moderator) could look the other way when someone posting here clearly denigrated my character without a shred of evidence supporting her accusations, even while she was demanding I provide rock solid evidence for every last thing I say - and going so far as to imply I just *might* have forged the receipt - the very evidence she was demanding I show - that I got from my vet.

In response you suggested it was only my assumption that she was denigrating my character - a sad excuse for unfair treatment and shoddy moderating.

If your presence here is to moderate discussions, why don't you do that? Instead of taking sides, leveling inaccurate critiques of arguments, and playing favorites?

And while your at it, why don't you re-read wikipedia's entry on circular reasoning. Maybe your reading comprehension difficulties will be cleared up with a second look.

Then read about the spread of Bsal in Norway, or the extinction of Australian frogs due to introduced Cytrid, or read some of the research supporting claims that the pet trade is largely responsible of the spread of chytrid around the world.

If your reading comprehension isn't too terribly compromised maybe you'll come to the rational conclusion that without steps to stop it, Bsal constituted a very real threat to North American salamanders, and that my assertion, in its given context, is not circular at all.
 
thamnophis123 said:
Not really Nick. I asked how you (as a moderator) could look the other way when someone posting here clearly denigrated my character without a shred of evidence supporting her accusations, even while she was demanding I provide rock solid evidence for every last thing I say - and going so far as to imply I just *might* have forged the receipt - the very evidence she was demanding I show - that I got from my vet.
Click to expand...

You keep mistaking opinions for assertions of fact. You take what you believe was implied in those opinions as denigrating your character (which is within your right). If you have a problem with someone's words to such an effect, directly address them with your take. If it is someone's opinion that you are of low character, then that is not for me to police as long as it does not break a rule. If it were to become overtly abusive, that could draw moderation because of the breaking of a rule.

You asked me how to make false accusations and get away with it (after lying about what you were banned for).

In response you suggested it was only my assumption that she was denigrating my character - a sad excuse for unfair treatment and shoddy moderating.
Click to expand...

It is your interpretation to have regarding the post you referenced. You are breaking a rule with this very post, but I am letting it go to give you a chance just like I have before for other rule violations you have committed in this thread.

If your presence here is to moderate discussions, why don't you do that? Instead of taking sides, leveling inaccurate critiques of arguments, and playing favorites?
Click to expand...

I am both a member and a moderator. The two hats are separated by the color of text I employ. I have issued infractions for multiple people in this thread. Two disagreed with you. No favorites have been played or, if they have, I have favored you relative to the number of instances where I did not need to. I am also free to give my opinion as a normal member and address what I want to within the confines of the rules.

And while your at it, why don't you re-read wikipedia's entry on circular reasoning. Maybe your reading comprehension difficulties will be cleared up with a second look.
Click to expand...

Try not to limit yourself to Wikipedia (or at least not one page). Begging the question beyond the most simplified form is a type of circular reasoning. Your premise is your proof by implication as it relates to the enactment of regulation in the US as the primary achiever of the goal (that existed before enactment).

Then read about the spread of Bsal in Norway, or the extinction of Australian frogs due to introduced Cytrid, or read some of the research supporting claims that the pet trade is largely responsible of the spread of chytrid around the world.

If your reading comprehension isn't too terribly compromised maybe you'll come to the rational conclusion that without steps to stop it, Bsal constituted a very real threat to North American salamanders, and that my assertion, in its given context, is not circular at all.
Click to expand...

I did not, in any way, dispute that as real where it has occurred or that it could be a risk in the US. If you read my words, rather than whatever you may have imagined was typed in invisible font, you would see I did not speak to there being no risk (since I do not believe there is zero risk). You have nothing other than absence (which was preexisting) to say the primary reason for a lack of infection here was the ban. That is circular. One could just as easily claim, by virtue of no cases here, that not having a ban was equally effective here at preventing cases as the ban has been (based on the lack of cases in both time periods). I do not discount the risks, though, so I do not say such things. You are mostly disputing an argument I did not make in the fragment of response above.
 
Since we are veering off-topic (again), we should return to discussion that relates more to Underground Reptiles and the snakes purchased from them. Yours, Joe, which recently tested positive for the fungus of concern, as well as those of Logan (and others if if there are others to come forward with their accounts). The test results and other details are valuable pieces of information here. The general concerns regarding the disease that are beyond connection to UR are already reserved for the other thread.

If you want to lodge a complaint about moderation, the feedback forum is the appropriate place for that.
 
Back
Top