Reptster.com experience with show sponsorship not good

[Mooing Tricycle]

Start over on post one with an open mind.

Agreed, when she talks about banners made for the show, i believe she means printable ones.

It seems that she already starting advertising for him in the midst of all that. as there was an email that contained an attachment only, from david.

Im sure she can clear that up for you if you need it.

 

[GottaLuvHerps]

Agreed, when she talks about banners made for the show, i believe she means printable ones.

It seems that she already starting advertising for him in the midst of all that. as there was an email that contained an attachment only, from david.

Im sure she can clear that up for you if you need it.

Tosha,

To clear some things up for you.

1. Advertising Reptster as our sponsor began WAY before mid-august. Although we did not have the LOGO until then, we were putting him out there as our sponor on forum threads (see the one HERE ON FAUNA called "New Show in Central PA" in the Shows and Events section, scroll down to 7/8/08 for one example). We also had a text link (very large) on both our front page and sponsors page of the website. We also created WEB BANNERS listing Reptster as our sponsor that were used in several places. Once the logo was received, we switched from text links to the logo. Fliers were printed up and handed out advertising Reptster as our sponsor with his logo once it was received. We asked for it multiple times before it was received, if you go back and read the emails. Advertising for Reptster was not pulled from anything until 9/16/08 as mentioned here on this thread and in emails to Mr. Young. SO this WOULD make it just OVER 2 months, but we are not "splitting hairs" as you put it.
2. Proof of our agreement has been posted in the very first post of this thread, as well as other ways to prove things throughout the thread. Mr. Young came on here, claimed proof, and yet provided none of any sort. The email he posted that he claims came from me was never validated by anyone, and Mr. Young has yet to offer to have it validated, unlike me. I have said several times that I would send the emails to whomever asks for them to validate them. No one has asked, but the offer has stood, even until this very second.
3. You say you have not seen proof that he owes $750 - have you seen proof that he does NOT, other than his statements that it happened over the phone or the email that he faked? No, you have not. I, on the other hand, have provided email after email showing that the agreement was $750, to which Mr. Young agreed to by saying he would get the check out.

My question to you is this - what more proof do you need from ME to prove my case to you? Why is it not now Mr. Young's responsibility to prove that my statements are NOT true? You keep saying you want to see facts, well, I have offered the facts, and even shown PROOF of what I say is fact, Mr. Young has not. I am just not sure WHY you seem to doubt things the way you do.

Kelly Kordek

 

[Southern Wolf]

For those that have requested to be removed from RIPster and have not been removed as requested.

There is always option B.

Or you could utilize option C

Profile status: Active
You can suspend your account to make it temporarily unavailable for search and contact. Later you can always reactivate it.

 

[ToshaMc]

Kelly --

No disrespect intended, please don't feel like I'm attacking you or defending him -- but I don't tend to take people for their word especially on the BOI -- or at the very least if I'm going to take one persons word I've got to take the others side equally -- I learned my lesson the hard way via Chris Johnson.

If you had one email from him saying "I will send you the $750" or a contract or anything - then yes I would stand in the hanging line with the rest of the group. I'm not on his side -- I'm not using his service and I don't in any way support him. That he lied about the Paypal stuff certainly shakes his credibility - but that doesn't provide the evidence that is lacking to convict - it's not an if/then situation.

On a jury of his peers he's already guilty regardless - for my own piece of mind I would be much happier convicting the man if there was a little more there to do so -- unfortunately that there was no formal contract the evidence just will not be there.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

She supplied an email stating that payment was sent. Did you miss that one?

 

[shrap]

...unfortunately that there was no formal contract the evidence just will not be there.

Are you honestly sitting there saying that without a formal contract an agreement can not exist between two parties?

David told me straight up on the phone that they had an agreement. He has not denied this at all. His version of the story was for $250. Regardless of $750 or $250 he still didnt pay them a dime for any of the advertising they already did on Reptsters behalf.

He lied about sending them a check, he lied about PayPal requests, he lied to me twice in two phone calls. The guy obviously has no problem lying but has a big problem paying his debts.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

Meant to add....A verbal agreement is a FORMAL contract. Legal and binding in most states, if not all.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Originally Posted by ToshaMc
I still haven't seen proof 1 that David agreed to the $750 if I'm going to believe Kelly's word that he did I have to give equal believe to David that he thought their agreement was for $250 -- But thats just me - I try to be impartial until the proof says otherwise.

I have to agree but would add preponderance of information given.
Tosha or anyone, is there anything that would suggest or lend to facts that Kelly might be untruthful with her statements? I'll be open to such comments. Anything? In all her replies here is there anything?

Is there any posts from other sources that suggest similar experiences that may lend more credibility to her side?

I ask the same in regards to the statements made by David.
Is there anything that would lend credibility to his statements? Is there anything posted that would cause one to believe he was untruthful?

Let me ask you, someone who is stating they are impartial.

I do concede that he does appear to be lying about the paypal requests

If that is your opinion,

if I'm going to believe Kelly's word that he did I have to give equal believe to David that he thought their agreement was for $250

That he lied about the Paypal stuff certainly shakes his credibility - but that doesn't provide the evidence that is lacking to convict - it's not an if/then situation.

that he appears to be lying in one aspect of this situation, why or how can equal believe still be granted to both parties?

That he lied about the Paypal stuff certainly shakes his credibility - but that doesn't provide the evidence that is lacking to convict - it's not an if/then situation.

It's not enough to state that he is lying about his version of what transpired but most certainly does does apply to equal believability.


It's very rare for someone to stand up in a BOI thread and admit they were wrong. A lot of time it isn't cut and dry who is in the wrong or being dishonest. All we have to go by is their word here. If they come on and are caught telling untruths it most certainly can be a if/then situation in a lot of others opinions, if not yours.
As Sammy stated sometime back -

Now with that being said, either you (Kelly) or David are flat out lying about how things went down because your versions are complete opposites.

Readers will believe one side or not. Think the whole transaction is important or not. They will care if someone lied or not. My personal opinion is if they lied about one point and nothing to back up the rest of their arguments, I'll give the benefit to the one who has been truthful in all aspects or at least hasn't been proven to be dishonest. So, I guess it is pretty cut and dry for me.

 

[Southern Wolf]

Kelly --

No disrespect intended, please don't feel like I'm attacking you or defending him -- but I don't tend to take people for their word especially on the BOI -- or at the very least if I'm going to take one persons word I've got to take the others side equally -- I learned my lesson the hard way via Chris Johnson.

If you had one email from him saying "I will send you the $750" or a contract or anything - then yes I would stand in the hanging line with the rest of the group. I'm not on his side -- I'm not using his service and I don't in any way support him. That he lied about the Paypal stuff certainly shakes his credibility - but that doesn't provide the evidence that is lacking to convict - it's not an if/then situation.

On a jury of his peers he's already guilty regardless - for my own piece of mind I would be much happier convicting the man if there was a little more there to do so -- unfortunately that there was no formal contract the evidence just will not be there.

Tosha... you will never see the other side equally.... cause he has no supporting evidence to back up his claims. He stated he had emails that she wasnt posting. This is true... he posted emails from made up celebrities. He claimed he had paypal invoices.... however he has faild to post those as well.

All he has done is blow smoke up our collective

He claims to have not owed Repticon anything.... however just a few weeks ago he paid off that debt.

I withheld judgement when this first started..... however now.... he has given me nothing to sway me to his side. So until other evidence is provided....you will not get me to change sides... I am backing Kelly in this all the way.


Rich.... this is just my personal opinion. By showing all the show pics of "kissing the babies" sotta speak... he has done nothing more than shit on your carpet. This is purly a political move of trying to get the masses on our side by showing we love the kids.

 

[Southern Wolf]

It's very rare for someone to stand up in a BOI thread and admit they were wrong. -

I knew I was special I just knew it.

I falsly accused Sharp of somthing in this verry thread.... and Im man enough to admit Im wrong (and I did admit it in open forum... not behind closed doors... I made the acusation in public... I will appologize in public). It has to do with integrity. And quite frankly David has none. That is why I wish NOT to be associated with RIPster.

It has been proven he lied about the paypal invoices..... He told these lies to try and get people on his side. Why in the world would you believe anything else he has said with supporting proof. And as of now.... there is NO supporting proof.

 

[Southern Wolf]

uhhhh that would be Shrap... not Sharp

 

[WebSlave]

Rich.... this is just my personal opinion. By showing all the show pics of "kissing the babies" sotta speak... he has done nothing more than shit on your carpet. This is purly a political move of trying to get the masses on our side by showing we love the kids.

Sorry, but I didn't see that as any violation of the rules, or otherwise inappropriate. Now if it were DIRECT advertising, then yes, I would have a problem with it.

And I would appreciate it if everyone would refrain from using profanity here.

 

[ToshaMc]

If the agreement truly was for $250 and then once she got into trying to live up to her end suddenly realized she couldn't do it for that amount - so she upped her price to $750 and then hounded him about it is he still contractually obligated to follow thru? Since no one has any proof of contract price how do you know he wasn't within his rights to say no thanks to a huge increase in price?

To be honest I'd be happy to concede that there was an agreement on the $$$$ amount if there was an email from either party with a dollar figure in it prior the logo being sent. But the story could float either way.

Yes he lied about the paypal requests -- does that mean he's lied about everything? Maybe he owes so many people money he thought all those requests were from her but were really from someone else

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

The $$$ amount is irrelevant at this point. "Payment has been sent". That states plain and simple that some $$$ amount was agreed upon.

Seems to me, for someone who was taken by CJ, that you'd be a little more open eyed to the facts, and less concerned with the nit picking over the amount. $100, $250, $750, doesn't matter once he said he paid, and it never showed.

 

[ToshaMc]

The $$$ amount is irrelevant at this point. "Payment has been sent". That states plain and simple that some $$$ amount was agreed upon.

Seems to me, for someone who was taken by CJ, that you'd be a little more open eyed to the facts, and less concerned with the nit picking over the amount. $100, $250, $750, doesn't matter once he said he paid, and it never showed.

The $ is relevant -- If you agreed to pay $250 and someone tried to upsell you to $750 - what amount should you be expected to pay? If he intended on paying the $250 but realized that she was asking for the $750 is he obligated to pay it? Would it satisfy the masses if he paid the $250 that was according to him the agreed upon amount?

 

[SPJ]

The $ is relevant -- If you agreed to pay $250 and someone tried to upsell you to $750 - what amount should you be expected to pay? If he intended on paying the $250 but realized that she was asking for the $750 is he obligated to pay it? Would it satisfy the masses if he paid the $250 that was according to him the agreed upon amount?

David never questioned the $750 until this thread. When Kelly sent him an email asking for the $750, he replied that the check was being mailed.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Would it satisfy the masses if he paid the $250 that was according to him the agreed upon amount?

I don't know about anyone else, but being repetitively lied to...There's no way to satisfy me over that...

 

[BryonsBoas]

Kelly --

No disrespect intended, please don't feel like I'm attacking you or defending him -- but I don't tend to take people for their word especially on the BOI -- or at the very least if I'm going to take one persons word I've got to take the others side equally -- I learned my lesson the hard way via Chris Johnson.

If you had one email from him saying "I will send you the $750" or a contract or anything - then yes I would stand in the hanging line with the rest of the group. I'm not on his side -- I'm not using his service and I don't in any way support him. That he lied about the Paypal stuff certainly shakes his credibility - but that doesn't provide the evidence that is lacking to convict - it's not an if/then situation.

On a jury of his peers he's already guilty regardless - for my own piece of mind I would be much happier convicting the man if there was a little more there to do so -- unfortunately that there was no formal contract the evidence just will not be there.

Did you type that with a straight face? Your arguments have been one sided for a bit now.

 

[SPJ]

The $ amount does not matter anymore.
The thing that does matter IMO is that David lost all credibility.
He has been caught in a few lies already which, once again IMO, shows he cannot be taken at his word.
This industry is all about trust and David has shown he is just not trustworthy.

 

[Southern Wolf]

Yes Boss.. your wish is my command.