1) Did I deny the tiger striped ad? Newp...had you read the ad you would have clearly seen:
Tiger is the pattern, orange is the color-I'm not claiming it to be a morph.
IT WAS A DESCRIPTION!
If you can't look at an orange animal with black stripes and the first image in your mind isn't a tiger you'll be called a liar or crazy by anyone you say it to.
I didn't post that link out of ignorance, it was posted to show people use wording to describe things all the time.
And how you perceive a ghost to be a ghost by shedding clear is very accurate, and it goes right along with everything else posted by you......by god, if you say so-it's fact. Did you email Doug on the Ghost boa? They don't shed clear, should he change the name? Ghost boas are two proven genes two make the one morph, a ball isn't.....it's a morph within itself and the two look NOTHING alike. A ghost is a hypo, shouldn't a hypo African rock python be called a ghost as well? I know my hypo rocks don't shed clear, then what are they if they lack dark pigment....Simple recessive ghost-ish Python Saebe?
2) If an animal looks axanthic people call it axanthic, if it looks albino it's called albino, if it looks hypo it's called hypo........where the difference from scammers and honest people come in is if they tell you WHERE the animal came from. Should people be so politically correct they refer to everything as
"This is a wildcaught imported ball python lacking brown and tan which I think looks alot like an axanthic" everytime they refer to the animal?
If axanthic, spider, hypo is used as the description and the ad or owner clearly explains WHERE the animal originated, describes WHAT it looks like, explains it's NOT a proven gene and explains ALL of the facts about the animal on health, feeding and temperament..........then it's VERY clear to anyone who can read what the animal is, and when it's priced at an affordable rate NOWHERE near a $20k spider it's OBVIOUS.
I did not ask you to trade straight up animal for animal, I asked if you were interested in trades, this is what I have and I'd like to work something out with your pastels.
The largest scale breeders in the business are always posting unproven genes as calicos, anerythristics, axanthics, pieds, hypos, motleys ect ect ect................why? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE DAMN THING LOOKS LIKE! And as respectable, reputable people they clearly state it isn't a proven genetic trait, and they also don't slap a $600 sticker on a $100 animal....it's always a base price of at LEAST $1000. There is not ONE single breeder that works with unproven oddball animals that doesn't have a name on it, I know....I've checked.
Mojave-before it was proven
Ghost-Before it was proven
Labyrinth-Still not proven
Burgandy-Before it was proven
Granite-Before it was proven
Melanistic-Before it was proven
Leucistic burm-Which was never proven
Patternless Boa-Which was never proven
Pearl boa- Which was never proven
Het for albino tegus-Before they were proven
Tiger retic-Before they were proven
Super tiger-Before they were proven
Super salmon boa-Before it was proven
Every morph has been dubbed a descriptive/invented name as something to refer to it as. Calico retics.....they had a name but had never been produced-they looked like calico cats. Did you email Kevin or Extreme Reptiles pissed off because their coined names were ripping off the people with calico cats? Did you climb Al Baldago for calling his new form of retic a tiger? Have you emailed Pete or Bob on their Type II albinos that hadn't been proven? Or the carmel albino retic? It's named after the carmel albino ball.....you better get that nasty post started! But yet both Pete and Brian have different strains of albino....shouldn't new lines of albino be types III, IV, V, VI regardless of the species? Where does it end, what are the limits, what are the expectations and finally who the hell are you to question me on an advertisement or offer to you when I was 100% HONEST?
You're completely self rightous in what you feel, but you're also hypocritical as you've not confronted any of the people above on animals with new names or coined labels calling them dishonest or "thieves of a term".......point and fact I've yet to do anything differently than the rest of the industry, I've yet to be dishonest or call anything that didn't look like a duck..a duck.
Your first point, you said I was ripping people off calling normals pastels, then after explaining myself you claim to understand the mistake, then you go back to the spider ball, then on this last post you return to me trying to rip people off with the pastel term........but wait, that had been cleared up hadn't it?
You catch me selling pied hets when I don't own pieds or find me sending out other peoples photos claiming they are mine when I don't own them, or posting ads, offering trades or inquiries on sales where I don't tell every single thing about the animal to the best of my knowledge...............then you call me dishonest. Until then you're little more than a blowhard with a bug up his ass that has NOTHING to do with me.
