Bad Guy Scammed by Andrew Michael Popp Las Vegas, NV

[Chris Kennard]

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.



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.



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.

Thanks Nick! Lol. Your last paragraph was the only one I needed. You are truly an asset and an ace here. Your knowledge is an awesome tool. I was just wondering if the offspring from the first breeding would be proof of whether or not the turtles in question are hets, or not. I'm sure that the investigator, Chris, who hired investigators to look into his case, will present your wisdom to the judge.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Any caramel that would pop out from the first breeding would prove it. Not popping out a caramel from the first breeding would not disprove it. This actually extends into perpetuity, but it equally applies as a rule to a limited number due to limited patience.

 

[filenamex5100]

I literally feel smarter (or dumber) after reading the last few post! straight scientist talk!!! wow. couldn't have said it any better myself (no chance!). haha

 

[tlmoon]

It seems like not producing visual hets in the first few clutches would not be beyond "reasonable doubt" or whatever the legal standard is, in terms of Chris being so sure the seller is going to be dragged off to prison for this "scam". He has a contract in place if they turtles don't prove out that would address that in a civil case. Why he didn't simply follow the contract he himself signed in good faith I can't imagine.....he has posted his answer to that question but I still have no idea. It's caused a lot of fuss, travel and legal fees, and unless he's really lucky, a countersuit against him. And it just seems unnecessary and has he caused himself more harm that good. I can't imagine ANYBODY who reads these threads will want to ever enter a transaction with Chris - why take the risk?

 

[Chris Kennard]

So it's fair to say that a judge viewing this case would have a tough time deciding whether or not these turtles are what they were advertised as from one (their first) breeding? Perhaps I should call Judge Dorsey (post #8) , and give her a link to this thread. As well as the investigators that are investigating the case that the investigator (Chris) has been investigating. What a tangled web we weave, when we choose to deceive...

 

[Snake-Queen]

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.



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.



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.

I didn't know RES lay more than one clutch per season, but my statement that it may take 2 - 3 seasons to prove or disprove the hets stands. If they were my turtles, I would grow them up & breed them for 3 seasons before declaring they are not het, especially if the statute of limitations is 6 years.

 

[calebroad]

It seems like not producing visual hets in the first few clutches would not be beyond "reasonable doubt" or whatever the legal standard is, in terms of Chris being so sure the seller is going to be dragged off to prison for this "scam". He has a contract in place if they turtles don't prove out that would address that in a civil case. Why he didn't simply follow the contract he himself signed in good faith I can't imagine.....he has posted his answer to that question but I still have no idea. It's caused a lot of fuss, travel and legal fees, and unless he's really lucky, a countersuit against him. And it just seems unnecessary and has he caused himself more harm that good. I can't imagine ANYBODY who reads these threads will want to ever enter a transaction with Chris - why take the risk?

Absolutely, if anyone has reservations about selling me a turtle, they should immediately decline the transaction, that is their right and would be respected fully.

Also Andrew Popp has dodged the demand letters and the process servers, and has ignored your comments, although he checks in frequently.

We will continue on exactly as planned. I am underterred, and I invite a counter claim, it would be viciously defended.

Thanks

 

[Chris Kennard]

A perfect example of how you cling to non threatening posts while ignoring the posts that show the true you. If you view this thread from start to finish, you avoided every question I asked. Hmmm. Wonder why.

 

[calebroad]

A perfect example of how you cling to non threatening posts while ignoring the posts that show the true you. If you view this thread from start to finish, you avoided every question I asked. Hmmm. Wonder why.

The constant posting by you and other trolls make me a little creeped out, and you falling all over yourself about Nicks knowledge, and your quoting other trolls and becoming so excited just has really given me the heeby Jeebies.

Your hostile interpretations of the law of which I know are incorrect are not appreciated and your constant antagonizing and quoting of posts to make someone out to be a liar, is really, borderline scary.

I don't know what you do Chris Kennard, but lord knows, I wish you'd leave me alone, you are not paid for your work here, and you have not made one single ioda of difference in my decision making, except to confuse the post beyond recognition.

Your a cyber stalker, and I wish you would value your time a little more. Move on. I mean, really? I have already completed half a dozen other transactions and check back here every so often, and I am surprised to see your still here hanging on every word, and acting like everything is some kind of conspiracy. I enjoy this hobby, but I may decide to go fly rx airplanes tomorrow and not mess
around in this hobby anymore - it's not my living.

Your an unusual person, I know you think you know it all, and lord knows your gonna post all about this, but for god sakes, go troll somewhere else, you have not influenced my decisions at all. Weather I'm right, or wrong, or whatever - you should devote your time to a paid profession. I skip your posts completely and do not read, but I do see your constant 24/7 posts all over the place. Find a productive place in your life Chris Kennard, I'll check back in a few weeks to see your awkward five dozens postings - that are quoted and backed up by other "regulars", - in the mean time I will be devoting my time and resources to an honest successful living for my family.

Have fun doing your thing!!

 

[Chris Kennard]

The constant posting by you and other trolls make me a little creeped out, and you falling all over yourself about Nicks knowledge, and your quoting other trolls and becoming so excited just has really given me the heeby Jeebies.

Your hostile interpretations of the law of which I know are incorrect are not appreciated and your constant antagonizing and quoting of posts to make someone out to be a liar, is really, borderline scary.

I don't know what you do Chris Kennard, but lord knows, I wish you'd leave me alone, you are not paid for your work here, and you have not made one single ioda of difference in my decision making, except to confuse the post beyond recognition.

Your a cyber stalker, and I wish you would value your time a little more. Move on. I mean, really? I have already completed half a dozen other transactions and check back here every so often, and I am surprised to see your still here hanging on every word, and acting like everything is some kind of conspiracy. I enjoy this hobby, but I may decide to go fly rx airplanes tomorrow and not mess
around in this hobby anymore - it's not my living.

Your an unusual person, I know you think you know it all, and lord knows your gonna post all about this, but for god sakes, go troll somewhere else, you have not influenced my decisions at all. Weather I'm right, or wrong, or whatever - you should devote your time to a paid profession. I skip your posts completely and do not read, but I do see your constant 24/7 posts all over the place. Find a productive place in your life Chris Kennard, I'll check back in a few weeks to see your awkward five dozens postings - that are quoted and backed up by other "regulars", - in the mean time I will be devoting my time and resources to an honest successful living for my family.

Have fun doing your thing!!

Lol. You love that "troll" word. By the way, I could have sworn you said somew that you don't read my posts. Sorry if I struck a nerve Mr. Pantsonfire. Somebody needs a hug...just sayin'.

 

[Lucille]

Chris,
As I read Chris Davis recent posts, I am mindful of a thread from years back that seems to be relevant. It was a BOI thread about a ball python auction business, no need to call their name as it is their BOI style, not the issue itself, that I am referencing.
Like Chris Davis, they delighted in personal attacks which they would pursue even to the point of creating posts just so they could post further attacks. This was an widely read thread too (all the threads here are important but there were a lot of people participating in the auction who were having issues, and it appeared that some flat out dishonest stuff was happening.)

After a while, it became clear that the personal attacks had a purpose: by not only did they take the focus off of what appeared to be seller's egregious dishonesty, it also put a padding of posts between facts and illustrations and the most recent post. The seller was obviously hoping that many people, busy with life and other matters, would not read the huge backlog and the actual facts and illustrations would be hidden, and all people would see it a lot of wrangling.

Rather than allow Chris Davis to control this thread by creating padding which tends to bury facts and pertinent examples of where he was caught lying, and examples of the way he has managed past issues, perhaps linking his personal attacks with pertinent, relevant past actions /facts might help prevent the padding.

His latest attack on you could be likened to an attack he has made in the past, which is relevant here because it was equally undeserved:
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=565731

 

[calebroad]

Chris,
As I read Chris Davis recent posts, I am mindful of a thread from years back that seems to be relevant. It was a BOI thread about a ball python auction business, no need to call their name as it is their BOI style, not the issue itself, that I am referencing.
Like Chris Davis, they delighted in personal attacks which they would pursue even to the point of creating posts just so they could post further attacks. This was an widely read thread too (all the threads here are important but there were a lot of people participating in the auction who were having issues, and it appeared that some flat out dishonest stuff was happening.)

After a while, it became clear that the personal attacks had a purpose: by not only did they take the focus off of what appeared to be seller's egregious dishonesty, it also put a padding of posts between facts and illustrations and the most recent post. The seller was obviously hoping that many people, busy with life and other matters, would not read the huge backlog and the actual facts and illustrations would be hidden, and all people would see it a lot of wrangling.

Rather than allow Chris Davis to control this thread by creating padding which tends to bury facts and pertinent examples of where he was caught lying, and examples of the way he has managed past issues, perhaps linking his personal attacks with pertinent, relevant past actions /facts might help prevent the padding.

His latest attack on you could be likened to an attack he has made in the past, which is relevant here because it was equally undeserved:
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=565731

Oh geez Lucille, you honestly could not do better than to repost the bout between Nick and myself from years ago? You must have failed socioeconomics miserable. You already posted that here? And everywhere else over the years.

How many time can you repost the same argument before even you and Chris gets tired of your own re-posts. At least if your going to struggle to hit me with something negative, don't keep reposting the same thing over and over, and over.

Get creative, think of something new Lucille, anything except your doing the same thing over and over.

Your not creative, and you simply say the same thing over and over again?

Lol - SMH

 

[Andy_G]

Oh geez Lucille, you honestly could not do better than to repost the bout between Nick and myself from years ago? You must have failed socioeconomics miserable. You already posted that here? And everywhere else over the years.

How many time can you repost the same argument before even you and Chris gets tired of your own re-posts. At least if your going to struggle to hit me with something negative, don't keep reposting the same thing over and over, and over.

Get creative, think of something new Lucille, anything except your doing the same thing over and over.

Your not creative, and you simply say the same thing over and over again?

Lol - SMH

Certainly just trying to be constructive and keep things in perspective here, and not trying to stir the pot... but february 2016 isn't years ago...you're being rather dramatic. Whether you're a good guy or not, no matter your track history of good dealings and contacts, you've now proven in more than one instance that you appear to act like a child if something goes wrong, you over-react and choose to be aggressive and accusatory, and then accuae others of bullying. There is nothing wrong with cross posting to establish either good or bad character. Perhaps attempting to change your way of reacting to criticisms and even the "trolls" from being purposefully dismissive because people are calling things as they see them would serve you well.

 

[calebroad]

Certainly just trying to be constructive and keep things in perspective here, and not trying to stir the pot... but february 2016 isn't years ago...you're being rather dramatic. Whether you're a good guy or not, no matter your track history of good dealings and contacts, you've now proven in more than one instance that you appear to act like a child if something goes wrong, you over-react and choose to be aggressive and accusatory, and then accuae others of bullying. There is nothing wrong with cross posting to establish either good or bad character. Perhaps attempting to change your way of reacting to criticisms and even the "trolls" from being purposefully dismissive because people are calling things as they see them would serve you well.

Okay more like a year ago then, I could send them a long list of my imperfections and the trolls can go to town on those.

But the bout with Nick - really? Again?

 

[Andy_G]

Perhaps attempting to change your way of reacting to criticisms and even the "trolls" from being purposefully dismissive because people are calling things as they see them would serve you well.

Okay more like a year ago then, I could send them a long list of my imperfections and the trolls can go to town on those.

But the bout with Nick - really? Again?

For being quick to accuse certain other members of repeating themselves, you've got an awful habit of doing it yourself. Seriously...you have to be doing this on purpose and trolling at this point yourself.

 

[calebroad]

For being quick to accuse certain other members of repeating themselves, you've got an awful habit of doing it yourself. Seriously...you have to be doing this on purpose and trolling at this point yourself.

Okay good - go to town in that imperfection. It's not as worn as the bout with Nick. Lol

 

[Chris Kennard]

Chris, do you know who doesn't think I'm a troll? People who are honest and can answer my questions. You avoided them all. You also just proved you lied again by responding to my post, you know, one of the ones you supposedly never read.

 

[Helenthereef]

Really you two, you are gaining nothing by this sniping. I suggest one of you just stops responding until there's some new information to add.

 

[tlmoon]

Neither Chris Kennard nor Lucille is a "troll". Far from it. I do not and have not seen either of them fly off the handle, call names, overreact, or lie. Chris Davis, we've seen you do all those things. Your continued name calling toward anyone who asks questions you don't like, points out inconsistencies in your story, or dares to disagree is getting pretty old.

I've tried to be fair and give you the benefit of the doubt, but come on.

 

[Snake-Queen]

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

Chris Davis, maybe you need to be reminded of the moderators words. Qa