Originally Posted by aschnell
I didn't say the OP doesn't need to provide proof, I just said it was odd that the buisness owner defended his reputation with nothing but words, thats all.
What do you suggest the business owner use to defend himself? When the OP provides proof of his claims, then the store owner should provide more, but until then, I think he did just fine, and so do most of the others here.
I suggested he provide a pay stub proving that Chris indeed worked there, seeing as this "ex-employee" thing seems to be quite the hot topic. Also maybe he could provide pics of his store showing how his animals are cared for and of their enclosures. Again though he doesn't have to at all. I'm just saying if he were to provide proof those things might be nice.
---------------------------------------------------------
Lovely. That is your opinion, no facts though, and again no proof. Maybe you don't care if there are dead animals in a store, but I can assure you many other people do.
I never said that I didn't care. I said it happens and that is a fact. I have been in this business for years, and I have sold to many pet stores. I have seen a dead animal here or there at every store I have ever sold to at one time or another. It sounds to me like, you don't know much about this business.
Nope, I don't own a pet shop. I am an undergraduate Biology student pursuing a career in various fields of gecko related research. I also breed a large number of Rhacodactylus geckos, so that's the area I have a great amount of experience in. I understand the occasional animal dies. But rather than explaining why the animal died, Jungle Bob just said "so-what?". Is that the attitude a pet store owner is supposed to have? I'm deferring to your opinion here because you have more experience.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Again this is your opinion. I provided you with facts about Leachianus growth and health that showed the animal was clearly very very small for it's size (if it was indeed that size when purchased), and provided the fact that a healthy and stress free Leachianus will grow, not stay the same size. And if the animal is not growing (and therefore not healthy) there is only one logical conclusion to draw, which is that the animal is unhealthy.
Just because a reptile does not grow a lot, doesn't mean it isn't healthy. These are reptiles, and in the wild I can assure you, they don't eat anything like we feed them in captivity. Maintenance diets are usually just fine.
The operative word there is "usually". In this case that diet is not fine. I'm assuming you know little or nothing about these geckos, so in matters regarding this species, I have both much more experience as well as the final say. Sorry.
------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it feels to me like you are using your opinions to break down my argument, which is fine, but it doesn't render you much credibility. Notice how (I feel like I've posted this about 4 times now) the other thread I provided a link to proves nothing except that the animal is now doing well and growing, regardless of where it was first purchased. And I never said otherwise, thank you very much.
Sure, I am using my opinion to break down what you say. I can say this, I have a lot more credibility around here then you do. The link you provided provides this case absolutley nothing. It is completely irrevelent, and of no use to this topic. This topic is not about an animal or even a species of animal. You seem to forget what it is about. I think you need to go back and read the OP's original post, maybe then you will get back on topic.
It's certainly not relevant to the whole topic, but it is relevant to the part of the OPs argument for why he chose to post in the first place.
I am a member on another forum, where all of this started (the TRUE original post thank you very much) and in which I suggested to Chris that he could post here if he wished. And he did so.
So please don't call that thread irrelevant. I have been involved in this for much longer than you, even if it was not on this site.
And yes, you do carry more credibility than I do here. But credibility doesn't always make a person right.
---------------------------------------------------
Well I see a problem with your logic, sorry to say. I really have to disagree with the statement "So they couldn't be doing anything too bad or it would be dead". I will use an extreme example here but torture for interrogational purposes is not designed to kill anyone, yet I think you would agree that is unhealthy. Also not providing your children with adequate amounts of food is considered "bad" (among other things) but a child can still get by on the bare minimum.
And no I did not buy an animal from the same store or ever state or imply that I did.
And I claimed to understand how the OP feels about seeing Leachianus geckos improperly cared for. I also claimed to not be taking sides because I was just providing everyone with more facts that many people seemed to be ignoring. That is all.
You say, you have a problem with my logic. Look at what you are using as a comparison, and you say my logic is bad. You are comparing a maintenance diet to torture, that is way off base. I bet most people are going to say your logic is way out of line. And you are claiming that a species is not being cares for, this thread is not about a particular species. You are the one who needs to get the facts straight.
I was not comparing a maintenance diet to torture (did I say I was?). I was comparing your statement of "So they couldn't be doing anything too bad or it would be dead" to an example which showed that just because a certain something is done to someone or some animal doesn't die - doesn't mean that this certain something wasn't bad for the "someone" or the "some animal". And I said it was an extreme example, but we are dealing with death here so there is no benefit in dumbing everything down.
Would you like a less extreme example? Here you are: Lead poisoning is considered "bad" correct? An animal can get a certain amount of lead in the diet that causes serious health problems, but doesn't kill the animal. If the owner of the animal feeds the animal food that has small amounts of lead in it (even if this is done unknowingly), it's still "bad" for the animal, correct?
And your problem by the way was not with the logic I used, but with the example I used to compare your statement too. That's key.
