MCMB Reptiles said:
All I did was read Jim's posts here and David Reid's comment on the other BOI. It was really that simple to piece together. Here we go, in 5 year old comprehension level:
Oh, the irony.
MCMB Reptiles said:
Jim and David trade snakes
In the sense that they apparently did exchange animals, I suppose your statement isn't entirely untrue. Of course, if you're saying that the deal was between David and Jim, Jim's comment on the matter seems to refute that. It appears he's claiming that he simply shipped an animal that happened to be in his possession.
Jim@SW said:
David I did not own the animal. I did not sell the animal you are talking about. It was in possession, and I shipped the animal.
It does seem a bit odd that David apparently had no idea that he was supposedly just dealing with a middle man - seems like such a notoriously honest person would have disclosed that little tidbit. Wouldn't anyone want to know just where any sense of recourse would lie, before consummating a trade with someone who'd later claim they were just a broker? Guess we'll just keep ignoring that, though. Anyway, with the above quote in mind, it seems pretty hard to justify the following statement regarding the snake's ownership:
MCMB Reptiles said:
Jim says it came from Brock, he knows it's a specter because that's what he bought it as from Brock
Sure seems that such an honest, reasonable person, who's such a great guy to deal with, probably would have been more open to the possibility that there was some mistake. Also seems that such a great guy wouldn't have eventually decided to pass the buck to someone else when he finally decided to take it more seriously, after it had apparently been brought up multiple times. We'll just add those aspects to the ignore list, too, I guess. Anyhoo, he'd actually referenced how the snake supposedly didn't belong to him twice:
Jim@SW said:
I had a Spector male that belonged to Brock Wagner here.
Now, what was it you were saying about comprehension level, Nick...? How should I put this? I know:
Your interpretation of the conversation and events and reality are not coinciding with one another.
-----------------
Given the arguments that some of you are making, it seems that you're basing your stance on the premise that Jim's business with Frade came before someone who values integrity should have any reasonable expectation to avoid a known scammer. It seems hard to hinge your defense on the idea that what he received from Frade was payment for a "past debt," without knowing just when this debt was incurred. I mean, if the very idea of openly holding someone's associations against him is abhorrent to you, any timing-based rationaliztions seem more than a little misguided and pointless. If you're going to focus on the timing, that suggests a certain openness to changing your stance based on the time table. Does anyone know when this supposed debt came about? Would it make a difference to you if you came to know that it was more recent than some of you seem to be assuming?
I have no dog in this fight, and I probably wouldn't have posted such a thread. That said, I can very easily see how David could have sincerely thought he was doing the right thing by posting it, without any need for foolish talk of any kind of "witch hunt."
.
