Bad Guy Amanda & Mike Webb of The Pet Gecko

[nickolasanastasiou]

Doh! I knew that. Sorry. :-(.

No need for apology.

It might actually cause them to take more notice if more than one person requests address of the matter.

I sent them the report and focused on matters of quality and format, as they may not be legally allowed to answer anything I might otherwise ask about the person they are running the test (if they are running the test) for.

That cannot speak about the client or the results (if there was any actual testing performed), but they can address whether the report format is correct or is not in accordance with their standards.

 

[Snake-Queen]

Really? Lol. I half expected a napkin that said "all good bro".

Well ... yeah, that is true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Here is what I sent, Rob.

I am not sure we will receive a reply, but I tried to word it so that the company would not have to spend energy circumnavigating any confidentiality issues.

 

[Lucille]

Outstanding letter. I think Antech will be calling Webb.


I think it is worth taking a moment and thinking about Webb's incentive to post results.

If he was seeking to genuinely reassure future potential buyers of the health of his stock, he would go for transparency and he would do so immediately, not after days and days of avoiding the many requests for the results of the tests he alleges to have had done. He could send written releases to his vet and to Antech to email copies of the results directly to interested parties. After all, his reputation is on the line.

If his incentive was merely to quiet those in this thread, obviously he has not succeeded.

 

[Kristi23]

Thank you for posting that Morgan. I was going to post mine later today to show what it should look like. You saved me time.

 

[yeloowtang]

WOW after following this post and reading it all, i can't figure out why he doesn't just man up and pay her back..

plus that lab report he posted, why would he black out any information on that ??
we should at least see his name or who submited the samples.not like it's a secret they came from him, IF they came from him !!!
why even block the name of who performed the tests ??
none of this makes any sense..

just pay her back, say your sorry and walk away with tail between your legs.
please have your animals checked out for real..

 

[Shiari]

I too don't understand why everything was blacked out on the antech report. A lot of the blacked out stuff would be species, the animal's name, the gender, the age.... was any of that incriminating? I used to work for VCA, which owns Antech, so I know how those reports look and how they are formatted. Sadly, yes, the two sentences are sometimes what you get. But it still should have had information on the method used. :/

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

I too don't understand why everything was blacked out on the antech report. A lot of the blacked out stuff would be species, the animal's name, the gender, the age.... was any of that incriminating? I used to work for VCA, which owns Antech, so I know how those reports look and how they are formatted. Sadly, yes, the two sentences are sometimes what you get. But it still should have had information on the method used. :/

What about sample IDs?

That posted page looks fishy as it was presented.

 

[Shiari]

What about sample IDs?

That posted page looks fishy as it was presented.

Normally each individual animal gets separate faxed reports. There should be a sheet for every single gecko tested. What the page given us says is that ONE gecko tested negative.... but with what? A fecal OP? Talk about an unreliable method. PCR?

 

[Shiari]

Normally each individual animal gets separate faxed reports. There should be a sheet for every single gecko tested. What the page given us says is that ONE gecko tested negative.... but with what? A fecal OP? Talk about an unreliable method. PCR?

Actually, it doesn't even say that much. It says some animal, of unknown species, tested negative. For all we know this is a sample sent in from a cat.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

It also implies that it is a single sentence "result" speaking to multiple animals/samples. "All" and "samples" and "were". Things are pluralized.

 

[Shiari]

It also implies that it is a single sentence "result" speaking to multiple animals/samples. "All" and "samples" and "were". Things are pluralized.

Actually, it doesn't necessarily. They may have performed whatever this test was multiple times from the single specimen provided, hence "all samples". This is often done with something like crypto because it can be so hard to detect.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Actually, it doesn't necessarily. They may have performed whatever this test was multiple times from the single specimen provided, hence "all samples". This is often done with something like crypto because it can be so hard to detect.

That description is of a retest of the same sample and may even be given a separate ID number, but that would still be one sample. In a proper quality setting, anyway. It should then make reference to a confirmation via retest when reporting results. Again, in a proper setting. Whether they have proper procedures is not something I would be aware of, however.

 

[favrielle]

Seriously, Mike?

This doesn't make you look better as a seller. Quite the contrary, in fact.

 

[Shadow Dragoons]

wow... thats Low

 

[Magical Geckos]

That is a scumbag move.

 

[favrielle]

That is a scumbag move.

At least he doesn't have me blocked, so I can see this one.

 

[Shadow Dragoons]

At least he doesn't have me blocked, so I can see this one.

did amanda do it too? i looked and saw amandas rating but not his

 

[favrielle]

did amanda do it too? i looked and saw amandas rating but not his

Yes. I believe I posted a screenshot earlier in the thread, one a friend sent me, showing Amanda's one-star rating.

 

[Kristi23]

That's just pathetic, childish, and vindictive.