John, you wrote:
"Mike you just made a real big mistake.........Your telling everyone you sent me 2 money orders for $75.00 each, But your Proof is a money order for $100.00............."
But then you stated:
"Plus another $75.00 money order. Mike was contacted & told what was recived & he gave us a story about messing up when he shipped.Now I'm sitting here with with 1 dead snake, another almost dead & $150.00 in money orders.........."
Now, John, you have not been inconsistant here at all, but it seems as though you have (perhaps) inadvertantly shown Michael to be posting "proof" that has nothing to do with this event.
Michael first said that he had sent an original MO for $75, but then posted a pic of a MO for $100. John then points out the inconsistancy in Michael's posts, then he (Michael) said that he must have misspoken in the first post, or his memory was hazy.
Michael settles on the $100 figure, because, it seems, that is the amount for which he has a picture, never mind that it does not say "Western Union" on it anywhere! Someone else (sorry, I foget who just now) noted that Western Union MOs generally have "Western Union" printed all over the face. Michael says [hey, you're right!] and posts a pic of a Western Union MO for $110, which does not match any amount cited by him so far, and does not yet explain why the other MO for $100 STILL does not have "Western Union" printed all over it as it should, if Michael is telling the truth!
Now, John comes along and says implicitly that he got a first MO for $75, then "another $ 75.00 money order," meaning that he has received two MOs for a total of $150, which is impossible, if Michael were telling the truth!
So, either:
A) Michael was correct in his first post, and he did send the original MO for $75
or
B) Michael was incorrect in his first post, and he sent the original MO for $ 100
However ... either way, Michael is not telling us the truth, it seems!
If he did "A," then that picture of a generic $100 MO was purposefully posted in order to serve as a false piece of evidence, in an attempt to "prove" that Michael was telling the truth. I guess he thought we would not notice the discrepancy???
If he did "B," he still has no answer for why John's account is different, why John's account matches Michael's first version of the story, OR why that MO doesn't have "Western Union" printed all over it!
Michael, if you are telling the truth at all, you desparately need to get your facts straight, and try to post some real evidence (with explanations along side, so everyone can see what it is you are trying to prove with the post) to support your assertions. If you are lying to us, which, to be honest, I fear may well be the case, I would suggest that you come clean and repay John whatever you owe him from that bounced check.