James Cline

I asked Doug not only about the boa itself, but about any transaction between you and himself. Even if there is some tricky play on words here that all of us are just not aware of, Doug has denied the entire transaction with you. He has also been informed about this thread. It is his own discretion to participate in this thread or ignore it, he has already made his claim in writing and I have posted it for all to see.

Originally Posted by jbcline

IT DOES NOT SAY DREAMGLOW

It doesn't say platypus, either. What's your point? I don't think that trying to get creative with the nomenclature is going to fool anyone.

You say this:

Originally Posted by jbcline

I never said it was a sun dream. It is a pastel sharp sunglow produced by Doug.

Doug says this:

Originally Posted by enharmonic

From: Doug Matuszak - Boa Basement (bbasement@att.net)
Sent: Sun 5/05/13 12:47 PM
To: Zach Maras (tsrexotics@live.com)

Hi Zach,
that ad is a complete lie. I still have all my Sun Dreams aka pastel sharp sunglows in my possession. This person is out to steal peoples money by using my name.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Will ad changed it isnt not a Pastel dream . Was sold to me as such by Gary Rose (Doug's vendor) .Spoke to Doug an got it all straight.

Ad will be changed sorry type (O) in anger over being ripped off by Gary Rose you can call an confirm with Doug just got off the phone with him. He did confirm it is his animal. Thanks for helping me get this straight never intended to rip anyone off.

Originally Posted by jbcline

Spoke to Doug an got it all straight.

The PM you just sent me (which I can post publicly if anyone would like, so I don't get accused of making a false claim) clearly suggests that you don't care enough to prove your claims, but I'm probably not alone when I say that I would love to see proof of your conversation with Doug.

Not a good start, James. The "I got ripped off" doesn't really fit with the other posts you've made. Clean it up.

Originally Posted by enharmonic

The PM you just sent me (which I can post publicly if anyone would like, so I don't get accused of making a false claim) clearly suggests that you don't care enough to prove your claims, but I'm probably not alone when I say that I would love to see proof of your conversation with Doug.

SPOKE to hmm meaning a phone call. You called him once call him again.

Post what you like . It was sold to me as a pastel dream sunglow produced by Doug BY HIS VENDOR. So yea its not a pastel dream sunglow after speaking with Doug (ON THE PHONE).
I have been corrected. An will relist when I can . Have made correction in the listing best I can do by phone at this time. Yes I was ripped off by Gary Rose nothing i can do about that so nothing to clean up about it. Doug has no way to reach him an I doubt I can either.

Originally Posted by jbcline

SPOKE to hmm meaning a phone call. You called him once call him again.

If you are serious about your reputation, it would not be an issue to pursue proof of innocence. I have no reason to contact Doug, he has already told me you are a con. If you are not a con, then have your name cleared up in writing. The path is an easy one.

Originally Posted by jbcline

Post what you like . It was sold to me as a pastel dream sunglow produced by Doug BY HIS VENDOR. So yea its not a pastel dream sunglow after speaking with Doug (ON THE PHONE).
I have been corrected. An will relist when I can . Have made correction in the listing best I can do by phone at this time. Yes I was ripped off by Gary Rose nothing i can do about that so nothing to clean up about it. Doug has no way to reach him an I doubt I can either.

Adding a third party into the mix like this is only muddying the water. I don't think it would be unfair to request an invoice or similar to show that you were honestly misled, and are not simply trying to misdirect the accusations.


On a side note to others, I was not aware that Doug used third-parties to sell his stock. Can anyone confirm or deni this without having to bother Doug any more than I already have?

Just received another email from Doug. He has informed me that James did call.

He said, paraphrased, that it has been cleared up, and that James will not be misrepresenting the animal anymore. He made no comment on whether the misrepresentation was accidental or intended, made no comment on whether the animal is truly in James' possession, and, lastly, suggested that an eye be keep out for any other "accidental" misrepresentations. I will post a copy of the email shortly, for the sake of a good record.