Bad Guy Scammed by Andrew Michael Popp Las Vegas, NV

[Chris Kennard]

I think this is what he meant when he said the BOI is entertainment. It's absolutely what I meant when I said it. It seems like his detractors are just as butthurt as he is. He is stringing them along as much as they are coming back at him. He knows all he has to do is mention that almighty "troll" buzzword and it triggers people. The last word!!! Everyone has to have it. It's been that way since childhood and doesn't change for some! The worst thing you could do to this guy is ignore him. That would really make him crazy. Right now he is just having fun.

Calling this entertainment and haphazardly throwing the troll card around is merelt a defense mechanism designed to distract from questions and observations that make quite a few of Chris' post here questionable. I don't think asking valid questions or pointing out clear contradictions makes me a "detractor". I you think I am "butthurt", you are definitely wrong. I need not reciprocate to his troll comments with similar derogatory names. Everyone I have ever been on the opposite side of the fence of, has called me a troll or worse. I dont need to explain why. This forum's success is based on the opportunity for people use various approaches to peel away layers that might hide certain truths or untruths. This is done on a regular bases on every thread without needing to be strung along, baited or triggered. Just sayin'.

 

[Cletus Marley]

Calling this entertainment and haphazardly throwing the troll card around is merelt a defense mechanism designed to distract from questions and observations that make quite a few of Chris' post here questionable. I don't think asking valid questions or pointing out clear contradictions makes me a "detractor". I you think I am "butthurt", you are definitely wrong. I need not reciprocate to his troll comments with similar derogatory names. Everyone I have ever been on the opposite side of the fence of, has called me a troll or worse. I dont need to explain why. This forum's success is based on the opportunity for people use various approaches to peel away layers that might hide certain truths or untruths. This is done on a regular bases on every thread without needing to be strung along, baited or triggered. Just sayin'.

I didn't mention you. lol

 

[filenamex5100]

mr Kennard assumed the same thing I assume. I "knew" you were directing that towards him.

I don't know chris Kennard and have never done business with him (that I can recall) so I have interest in agreeing or disagreeing with his comment. oddly enough though, when I see his reply to a given thread/post, I tend to read it entirely. to me, he makes valid points and addresses real issues while keeping key points in mind. he also doesn't seem to forget things. I just find it kind of funny that the op chooses to avoid kennards postings at all cost yet I read them entirely to see if he has pointed out something I overlooked.
sure Kennard may poke fun or be a little over the top sometimes. but I also don't agree that he is a "troll" or goes out of his way to cause someone problems or make negative comments for no reason. people now days always want to get offended over things, completely forgetting the root of the problem. most issues that people bring up are a bi-product of some underlying issue. in those cases, if the original issue would have been addressed, the subsequent issues wouldn't exist.
so to call anyone a troll is really not a valid point in this thread because the op, after making his own claims and statements, had the opportunity to avoid bi-product issues entirely.

 

[filenamex5100]

correction: I have no interest in agreeing***

 

[Cletus Marley]

We are in agreement Rowdy. My whole point was that I think the OP enjoys the banter back and forth and he knows he can use the troll card and be assured of getting a response. Right or wrong, he does it and gets a rise out of people. It was just an observation on my part.

 

[filenamex5100]

gotcha!

 

[Chris Kennard]

I would assume you were correct as well. The store did not enter into the agreement with the OP. It does not matter where the original seller got the turtles, it matters who the OP did the deal with. The original seller was not selling them as an employee of the store, he merely stated that's where he was a part-time employee, but he did not state that he was selling them for the store or as store goods.

Now, if the OP wants to sue the original seller as an individual selling the turtles under false pretenses, then that's all good and well. But he cannot name the original seller as an acting employee of the store when the store is not the one who listed the original ad or had the original seller list the animals. Especially when the original seller never said he was selling them FOR the store. He said HE was selling them (as an individual.)

The court will more than likely see that this is the case and throw out the filings since the OP is not suing the correct person, then tell the OP to refile the paperwork citing the correct person he is suing.



You sir need to slow your roll, shut your trap and listen.

The more you act like a damned child, the longer you will be treated as such. You cannot stomp around her acting like you own the world, calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll and then expect sympathy. It does NOT work that way in the real world. As a former "law enforcement officer" you should know this. You should also know how much people hate it when other people are acting entitled. As a former LEO, you should also know that when you act like an idiot you get treated as such. I would assume that when you were an LEO and you had people who were kind, followed orders or requests and worked with you in a manner that was pleasant, that you were more inclined to help them out a bit more. When they were the opposite, you probably were a bit more of a jerk to them.

I know plenty of LEO's that would rather work with people who are kind than acting like a jerk. I would assume that YOU would rather have people be nice when you're interacting with the public (even on a public forum) so the key to getting others to be nice, is YOU being nice. You being an outright jack** to others, no matter if they've ever wronged you or not; proves that you think you can act like the world revolves around you, and you expect others to think the same. It does not work that way. You may think it does, but it does not.

10-1 you will ignore this whole post, or call me a troll but truthfully; it doesn't matter to me either way. I'm not the one who brought this thread to this forum; you did. You chose to bring this thread to the forum, yet you can't take it when the pan gets too hot for you. You need to learn to take a damn chill pill and then respond. Or else you're going to look like an idiot every time...

Good luck out there dude. You're going to need it.

I have to wonder about his role in "law enforcement Brandi. He has been extremely careful with his words regarding that issue. In post#58, he simply states, I worked IN law enforcement for years, and left to do private investigations". In post #213 he mentions "previous law enforcement experience". Cut to post #215, where he states, "previous law enforcement experience is IMPLYING that at one time, I graduated the Georgia State Police Academy and was a police officer. However, as much as I ENJOYED THAT JOB, private investigations and private endeavors suited me better". At this point in the thread, it's hard to decipher what is fact and what is fiction with regard to anything Chris says.

 

[Mistyck]

I have to wonder about his role in "law enforcement Brandi. He has been extremely careful with his words regarding that issue. In post#58, he simply states, I worked IN law enforcement for years, and left to do private investigations". In post #213 he mentions "previous law enforcement experience". Cut to post #215, where he states, "previous law enforcement experience is IMPLYING that at one time, I graduated the Georgia State Police Academy and was a police officer. However, as much as I ENJOYED THAT JOB, private investigations and private endeavors suited me better". At this point in the thread, it's hard to decipher what is fact and what is fiction with regard to anything Chris says.

There is truth in that Chris. Either way, you think he wouldn't be such a bratty child about things in his responses. But I'm guessing that's asking too much from someone who is so self-centered.

 

[DavidBeard]

Judging from how easily he gets taken for thousands of dollars in turtles, I wouldn't trust him to "investigate" a bad smell at the Sewage Plant.

 

[AbsoluteApril]

Name calling is counterproductive and childish

Agreed. It is also not allowed on these forums. This includes calling members 'trolls'. OP, I would advise you to knock that off.
Thank you

 

[Lucille]

I don't think asking valid questions or pointing out clear contradictions makes me a "detractor".

In fact, those actions make you a productive member here. As much as some people try, and I think Chris Davis is trying, one cannot force a conclusion on readers.
If readers ask questions, it is ordinarily to get some clarifications in an effort to get at the truth. Hiding the truth or mocking the question asker calls into question the motives of the hider/mocker.

Chris, perhaps you wish to be in complete control of not only the conversations but the very thoughts of readers. The harder to try to achieve complete control by hushing and mocking, the more questions arise.
If not being in complete control of a situation makes you anxious, perhaps you should address that issue, in your own thoughts and in the privacy of your home and then return here to Fauna where questions often lead to truths.

 

[Chris Kennard]

In fact, those actions make you a productive member here. As much as some people try, and I think Chris Davis is trying, one cannot force a conclusion on readers.
If readers ask questions, it is ordinarily to get some clarifications in an effort to get at the truth. Hiding the truth or mocking the question asker calls into question the motives of the hider/mocker.

Chris, perhaps you wish to be in complete control of not only the conversations but the very thoughts of readers. The harder to try to achieve complete control by hushing and mocking, the more questions arise.
If not being in complete control of a situation makes you anxious, perhaps you should address that issue, in your own thoughts and in the privacy of your home and then return here to Fauna where questions often lead to truths.

Thank you. Nicely put! I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't "get" why he chose a path of slander, as opposed to simply adding to the legitimacy of his case by answering easy questions and proving proof he so adamantly based his campaign on. Case in point (as just one example), he stated in post #23, that he "will post EVERY SINGLE TEXT MESSAGE between me and this slick talking thief" He post only seven texts, conveniently leaving out the rest. I asked for the whole conversation...NADA! Regardless of who is right or wrong, Chris mocked and abused this forum by bending the truth and soliciting sympathy and support under false pretenses. Chris owns that.

 

[Chris Kennard]

Just out of curiosity, what are the chances of "hets" not producing visuals in their first clutch? I've heard of this happening with snakes. I'm not a turtle guy. Just curious. Any thoughts?

 

[EdwardK]

Just out of curiosity, what are the chances of "hets" not producing visuals in their first clutch? I've heard of this happening with snakes. I'm not a turtle guy. Just curious. Any thoughts?

Its going to be the same as with snakes assuming that you are dealing with simple recessive/dominant gene combos. A single het to het breeding should produce phenotypically 3 normal patterned to one phenotypical recessive.

some comments

Ed

 

[filenamex5100]

to go along with your comment about hets, I think its safe to say again that "fact" leaves no room for possibility. its always "possible" for a het not to produce a visual morph in any species. I am by far no expert as I have stated but I still don't think a court could issue judgment against someone if he found one single credible case of a true het not producing a visual morph. i would assume the defense would search the earth for that information as well.

I think that's where the terms double het or 100% double het comes from. ...I could be wrong.

 

[EdwardK]

Yes it is a statistical probability, there isn't any guarantee that the first clutch would produce any individuals with the desired phenotype or the second or the third and so forth. The greater the number of eggs produced, the greater the probability of having one or more of the desired morphs appear. This is why sample size is so important in determining the probability of an event happening, for example the chance of coin flip showing heads is 50% but if you flip the coin only once, you could get a tails, if you flip it twice, you could get two tails in a row and so forth, three times three tails or two tails and one heads, the larger the number of times the coin is flipped the closer to the predicted 50/50 ratio you see.

some comments

Ed

 

[Chris Kennard]

Thanks for the response guys. So my next question, obviously, is how many eggs would be produced, typically, in the first clutch?

 

[Chris Kennard]

My point being, could a judgement be made accurately as to whether or not an animal is het by what is produced in the first clutch.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

That is where things get hairy.

The percentages are per gamete pairing (or embryo/hatchling since it is comfortably conceptualized that way).

Speaking to the caramel piece alone and ignoring the albino piece -

While a homozygous X heterozygous pairing should yield a 50/50 shot of homozygous for caramel versus heterozygous for caramel, it is new gamble of chance with every embryo and every embryo's chances are independent of the others. You can calculate a string of chances, but it is not really predictive. Also, no matter how many chances of/in series are calculated when not proving out with a homozygous caramel, that calculation does not ever reach a chance of zero. By test-breeding, we can prove hets out but not technically disprove hets because there is always that chance of poor luck taking place. Since the last time I got into this discussion, I came across an instance of someone's animals taking over forty ( 40!!! ) offspring until the het parent proved out. That is very, very far from the norm. If you get enough offspring, the stats start to link up with the results, but sample size is key. When I had something (of a different species, but the math works the same way) that was supposed to be a het for me produce a season's worth of hets only and no morphs (at over forty-five hatchlings), I figured she was not going to prove out. I used to draw the line personally (for making decisions) at 20 results from homozygous to heterozygous pairings. I am giving that animal this season to be "functionally disproven" (not mathematically disproven) based on the freakish streaks. She can never be mathematically disproven because the chance of some absurdly long string of non-morph results still is and always will be greater than zero by calculation (because you are multiplying a percentage by a percentage with both values greater than zero; 0.0000000000001 x 0.0000000000001 is still not 0 by the math).

If the call is made by reasonable assumption at some point, then we could label it as disproven despite it not necessarily being accurate. Everyone has a different threshold, though. I have seen many cases where keepers flipped out on sellers because they hatched out four, six, or ten babies and were dissatisfied because they had no visuals and they believed it should have been half visual and half het. Life does not always work like that, though. I have had 10-long streaks in both directions. That is why I made my calls traditionally at 20. With the existence of at least one 40-long streak, it even gives me pause because I thought my 20-long threshold was adequate for making a decision. Pain in the cloaca, right there. I think the 10-streak is a little less than 0.0098% probable, but they have happened multiple times for me with hets that proved out despite that chance being perceived as very small. A 40-streak is something like slightly less than 9.095x10^-11% probable. Insane, yeah? Yet it has happened.

So my next question, obviously, is how many eggs would be produced, typically, in the first clutch?

I often get 4-6 if they are small-bodied females of this species. It can be three times that for me per clutch if large-bodied, but that is not what we would be seeing here in my experience. There should be several clutches in the season. Three to six clutches per season would be relatively common (depending on the individual animal) for me. Not all of these eggs would necessarily be viable and that would draw out the evaluation.

My point being, could a judgement be made accurately as to whether or not an animal is het by what is produced in the first clutch.

I would not bet the farm on the first clutch. I might even be wary with only a single season (depending on how many hatchlings I would actually get). I have had other animals not prove out with smallish clutches one season that then proved out the following season.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Yes it is a statistical probability, there isn't any guarantee that the first clutch would produce any individuals with the desired phenotype or the second or the third and so forth. The greater the number of eggs produced, the greater the probability of having one or more of the desired morphs appear. This is why sample size is so important in determining the probability of an event happening, for example the chance of coin flip showing heads is 50% but if you flip the coin only once, you could get a tails, if you flip it twice, you could get two tails in a row and so forth, three times three tails or two tails and one heads, the larger the number of times the coin is flipped the closer to the predicted 50/50 ratio you see.

some comments

Ed

This. With less words than my post took.