Bad Guy Beware of Jerry Kruse

[deborahbroadus]

Asking people to stop talking crap so his check clears makes no sense now. If that were a possibility Jerry would have told him to go to hell along time ago. He should have been worried about that at the beginning. That's why I do not think this thread had anything to do with Stu getting his refund. If your going to get burned either way, refund or not, a bad guy would have just not refunded. It seems it would have ended the same way.

I think it might be quite an "eye-opener" to research some of the BOI threads. I can personally remember quite a few cases/situations where the buyer was promised a refund, a check was sent, and it BOUNCED.

Usually, if I am remembering correctly, this strategy was (imo) usually used to "buy time." When the check bounced...more excuses were made, another check wrote...etc...and etc... it's an old dodge.

It usually gave the seller an opportunity to make more sales when potential customers saw that the seller seemed to be "becoming more Customer Service savvy." The situations for the new customers did not always end well either.

 

[thomas davis]

well

Thomas yes Jerry is a friend and that is based on first hand experience with him over many years. I'm not discounting other's experience but I feel like I should be able to relate my own without having my motives or character questioned. Doing so demeans the BOI and if you doubt me on that read webslaves post about killing the messenger:

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236966

Lastly you know I also have a long history of taking the least popular side of an issue to advance a conversation. On many occasions I've sided with you over hybridization issues when your combative style made you a very hard person to defend or sympathize with.

i have certainly NOT discounted you or anyones experience(s) with jerry kruse nor have i killed any of jerrys "messengers" i have no need to.
like i said this isnt about "sides" tony its about right and wrong and what your friend did and how he chose to handle this whole mess was/is wrong and anyone can see that.
so the truth is combative huh? i need not you or anyones sympathy or defense when it comes to my opinions/issues over hybrids or really any thing, see im a big boy that can handle himself just fine, and will stand on the merit of truth and honesty with nothing to fear or hide... but thanks anyway
and no i dont/wont back down ESPECIALLY when fundementally i feel its about RIGHT and WRONG which is what this whole thread here is about, bottom line and thats also why since my first post that ive said over and over again it is ashamed it was brought here in the first place, and had jerry handled his "business" it never would have here for all to see FOREVER.
not only did jerry and his supporters concerning this deal step in "it" they slipped fell down rolled around and have wallowed in "it".
there simply is no defense to jerry and his supporters in this thread, just like there is no defense needed for getting personal in a business transaction.
in the end i feel jerry is good as he did refund stu ... "but" at what cost!
see its all VERY telling for anyone looking/searching. now would i do business with jerry after this thread/deal.... without a doubt i can assure you the answer is NO! would I say jerry is a bad guy not to be trusted? same answer... NO i would not.
would i advise anyone considering doing business with jerry kruse to read this thread and decide for themselves? absolutely... YES

 

[Gerards]

I think it might be quite an "eye-opener" to research some of the BOI threads. I can personally remember quite a few cases/situations where the buyer was promised a refund, a check was sent, and it BOUNCED.

Usually, if I am remembering correctly, this strategy was (imo) usually used to "buy time." When the check bounced...more excuses were made, another check wrote...etc...and etc... it's an old dodge.

It usually gave the seller an opportunity to make more sales when potential customers saw that the seller seemed to be "becoming more Customer Service savvy." The situations for the new customers did not always end well either.

It's all down to one part of the total left. Why do you think the last little part would not be given at this point? If it was the whole amount on this one post dated check I would understand, it is not though.

 

[deborahbroadus]

It's all down to one part of the total left. Why do you think the last little part would not be given at this point? If it was the whole amount on this one post dated check I would understand, it is not though.

I do not THINK it would not. I am simply saying that EXPERIENCE has taught some of us not to "Count our chickens before they have hatched."

 

[laterob]

I am with Deb on this. Time will tell. Either way, it has taken way longer than it needed to, and the sending of a post-dated check on the 31st was, in my opinion, a final 'slap in the face' to Stu (Stew to Jerry).

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Spin it any way you like but there is Absolutely No Reason to even mention a mans family. It has nothing to to with the subject matter pertaining to this thread.

Absolutely no spinning. I didn't comment if I was in agreement with the comments or not. I simply stated he didn't attack the man's family as someone else stated and that is a FACT, Steve. But since you brought it up, there was nothing negative at all about the " family" in that post and several of you went overboard in your reaction to it.

Matter of fact, I pretty much stated the exact same thing in another thread on here. I stated to Mr. Wise who stole the funds that were donated to the children and wife of a member of this site that passed away that I hope one day his children finds the thread and reads what he has done. I meant it and wouldn't change a word.

Obviously, this is a different situation. One can agree or not agree that it wasn't right for someone state that "your kid might read this someday" but that isn't a overly harsh statement and you and others are absolutely ridiculous to make such a big deal about it.

My personal opinion of Jerry from what I have learned as this transaction has progressed here is that Jerry is untrustworthy and a liar. If I thought that his actions might be honest, I might mention, " Hey, you sure you want to do that? Someone might read this one day." I'd do it. Let's just wait and see if Stu gets all his funds back first.

 

[hhmoore]

It's all down to one part of the total left. Why do you think the last little part would not be given at this point? If it was the whole amount on this one post dated check I would understand, it is not though.

For my part, I'm not overly worried about the last check bouncing (though that is a possibility, especially if Stu tryouts to cash it early - there really is no requirement for him to hold it until the date Jerry designated). While I agree that the post dated check, at this point, after all the promises, was little more than slap in the face for Stu, my issue is that if Jerry's self-admitted attitude/temper kicks in he could stop payment on the check and leave Stu hanging. Maybe he sent the two checks because he legitimately didn't have the funds (which calls attention to his inside insistence that Stu would have payment in full by the end of the month, which didn't happen no matter how you slice it), but maybe...just maybe...he did it for another reason.

 

[Gerards]

For my part, I'm not overly worried about the last check bouncing (though that is a possibility, especially if Stu tryouts to cash it early - there really is no requirement for him to hold it until the date Jerry designated). While I agree that the post dated check, at this point, after all the promises, was little more than slap in the face for Stu, my issue is that if Jerry's self-admitted attitude/temper kicks in he could stop payment on the check and leave Stu hanging. Maybe he sent the two checks because he legitimately didn't have the funds (which calls attention to his inside insistence that Stu would have payment in full by the end of the month, which didn't happen no matter how you slice it), but maybe...just maybe...he did it for another reason.

So its possible he might have, maybe, could have a temper flare and cancel the check? What would cause him to maybe, might, possibly do something like that now? There is no person on a Internet site that's going to make a bad guy do anything. Only a good guy gives a refund when it is due, that's not a time frame, it's when someone deserves it. Have you ever had paypal make a mistake and tell them you want your money right now?

 

[hhmoore]

You can defend him as much as you want, we have different opinions...possibly based on different information. I'm not trying to dissuade you, I could care less if you support, or buy from, Jerry. By the same token, your protestations that he is a good guy because - no matter what else - he gave a refund fall flat with many of us.
I've never dealt with Jerry, and I don't know whether you have....my only information on him, and how he deals with issues, is what I have seen in this thread. Again, maybe it is just that I have seen things that you haven't, but we've looked at the same thread and have different opinions. I'm okay with that

 

[laterob]

Have you ever had paypal make a mistake and tell them you want your money right now?

That's a non-sequiter. Paypal didn't promise Stu he'd be paid by the end of the month; Jerry did. The check was postmarked on the 31st, but Stu sure as heck didn't have the money like Jerry gave his word that he would.

 

[Gerards]

You can defend him as much as you want, we have different opinions...possibly based on different information. I'm not trying to dissuade you, I could care less if you support, or buy from, Jerry. By the same token, your protestations that he is a good guy because - no matter what else - he gave a refund fall flat with many of us.
I've never dealt with Jerry, and I don't know whether you have....my only information on him, and how he deals with issues, is what I have seen in this thread. Again, maybe it is just that I have seen things that you haven't, but we've looked at the same thread and have different opinions. I'm okay with that

I'm not defending him, I'm pointing out how this really means nothing. What did this do to get Stu a refund? I do not know Jerry and have never met him. I do know some of the people that were against Jerry and consider them friends and very intelligent people. I don't know what you think you have seen that I haven't, my opinion is about the way people think they made someone do something with their keyboard. Jerry did it all by himself, all but the last part of the refund is complete. I will agree to us having different opinions and say goodnight, thanks.

 

[hhmoore]

Sure, Jerry did it all by himself...but what was stopping him from doing it all by himself before the issue was brought here. What this thread did was bring things into the open; and, whether you agree or not, many people think that is why Stu is getting his money back.
If you want to further discuss the value or effectiveness of the BOI, please do so in the Fauna Feedback Forum - that section is better suited to that topic, as it is distracts from the topic at hand

 

[Gerards]

That's a non-sequiter. Paypal didn't promise Stu he'd be paid by the end of the month; Jerry did. The check was postmarked on the 31st, but Stu sure as heck didn't have the money like Jerry gave his word that he would.

I'm pretty sure he said he was pleased and that he hasn't continued to comment. He has every right to but is waiting for the date on the check and then will have received his refund. If you are loosing sleep over this then...... I don't know what to tell you. That's not a lie, it's a set back. Paypal is a example, I have had my money held up for a long time and as much as I wanted it right away, it doesn't always work that way. I still use their service even though there was a set back. You seem to think anyone you think is wrong must act in a way you see fit, you will find that's not the way it works, only in fauna land. Is Stu happy he has that last check in hand after all others have gone through no problem? I would hope so, he's a couple days from being done with this.

 

[Gerards]

Sure, Jerry did it all by himself...but what was stopping him from doing it all by himself before the issue was brought here. What this thread did was bring things into the open; and, whether you agree or not, many people think that is why Stu is getting his money back.
If you want to further discuss the value or effectiveness of the BOI, please do so in the Fauna Feedback Forum - that section is better suited to that topic, as it is distracts from the topic at hand

Am I aloud to answer you? I will stop distracting the many people's opinions...lol...Goodnight!

 

[JETZEN]

John,

I've already written that 'other' stuff, as seen by your quoting me on it.

Here's something for you and everyone to think about. I really don't care for Mr. Kruse. That's obvious. Also, if I just wanted to see Mr. Kruse slammed for everything, true or not, I would have just sat back and watched him get slammed for 'knowingly' sending sick snakes to Stu. However, I don't believe in allowing disingenuous information about someone, or their actions, to 'take them down' (btw, I don't think Thomas was trying to 'make up' things about Jerry, I just think he thought that ZD didn't act that quickly and that Jerry had to know; that's why I defended my belief that Jerry didn't realize they were sick when he sent them...because ZD can onset that quickly).

So, given that, I think you can deduce for yourself whether I think what I wrote before I believe to be true, and whether I simply made it all up to 'take down' Jerry.

Mitch

Mitch,
well thanks for the info about jerry anyway. the colubrid community deserves to know about people like him. "take him down"? not me i'm just glad the truth is availible thanks to the BOI.


John Sommerfield

 

[hhmoore]

You can answer...but general comments about the BOI really have no place in this thread. That's the only part I was addressing in blue.

 

[Bobby O]

Let's see what I learnt about Jerry Kruse from this thread....

What I learnt about Jerry Kruse from this thread other than his many personality issues and the Stu deal gone very bad:

1) Knowingly selling zonata crosses as pure locality/ssp.

2) Knocked other breeders for having ZD in the past as his sales pitch.

3) Attempting to buy/buying other breeders zonatas and reselling them for profit.

4) Asking people to send him letters/receipts of purchases displaying much higher prices so he can show prospective customers in order to increase prices on future sales.

5) Displays pictures of animals that are not his and without informing the owner that he did so.

6) Trashing the people on the West Coast for gifting zonatas even though he was the recipient of these gifts.

My conclusion: Jerry has the credentials of a good used car salesman if he wants to change careers......

 

[Mitchell Mulks]

John,

I'm sorry, I think my writing got a little funky there. All I was saying to you was that, yes, that stuff I said wasn't fabricated, and that i didn't say it to just 'take him down'. I said it because I thought his past actions needed to made public for future and past customers. I'm sorry if you thought I meant you were trying to 'take him down'. That wasnt what I was saying at all.

Mitch

 

[JETZEN]

John,

I've already written that 'other' stuff, as seen by your quoting me on it.

Here's something for you and everyone to think about. I really don't care for Mr. Kruse. That's obvious. Also, if I just wanted to see Mr. Kruse slammed for everything, true or not, I would have just sat back and watched him get slammed for 'knowingly' sending sick snakes to Stu. However, I don't believe in allowing disingenuous information about someone, or their actions, to 'take them down' (btw, I don't think Thomas was trying to 'make up' things about Jerry, I just think he thought that ZD didn't act that quickly and that Jerry had to know; that's why I defended my belief that Jerry didn't realize they were sick when he sent them...because ZD can onset that quickly).

So, given that, I think you can deduce for yourself whether I think what I wrote before I believe to be true, and whether I simply made it all up to 'take down' Jerry.

Mitch

Mitch,
thanks for the info anyway. as for "taking him down"? i doubt he'll be totally destroyed. there will always be some buyers/traders/beggers that think they'll get a good deal from him. personally i'm just glad the truth is availible thanks to the BOI.


John Sommerfield

 

[JETZEN]

John,

I'm sorry, I think my writing got a little funky there. All I was saying to you was that, yes, that stuff I said wasn't fabricated, and that i didn't say it to just 'take him down'. I said it because I thought his past actions needed to made public for future and past customers. I'm sorry if you thought I meant you were trying to 'take him down'. That wasnt what I was saying at all.

Mitch

jerry's already done himself enough harm but i do think that some are trying to sweep it under the rug for him. fortunately they're not very good at it,LOL!!!
well i'm done here for now prolly won't be back for a while way too busy.