• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Bad Guy Ed Clark - Scammer, Liar, and Sells Sick Dragons

I don't know if you can classify it a contact as it was verbal

So I can't give a yes or no on this one

Yes we had verbally talked about it

No there was no offical contract
 
TheSnakeRoom said:
I will be starting a new BOI thread monday when I have access to my office pc. This was just an attempt to get him to respond because private emails have not worked.
Click to expand...

Is your name really Jospeh?
There is no need to start a new thread - it is actually preferred that existing threads be used when possible. You started in this thread, please continue in this thread.
 
HowlinGaleDragons said:
I don't know if you can classify it a contact as it was verbal
So I can't give a yes or no on this one

Yes we had verbally talked about it

No there was no offical contract
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the words you just typed above do qualify as a "verbal contract," which is just as binding as a paper/hard copy one. By posting above, you have just revealed that it was IN FACT a Breeder Loan.


*Thanks for that reminder, Lucille!
 
hhmoore said:
Is your name really Jospeh?
There is no need to start a new thread - it is actually preferred that existing threads be used when possible. You started in this thread, please continue in this thread.
Click to expand...

It's Joseph. typo. I'll post my info within the existing threads as they relate to Ed Clark.


Joseph Carpenter
www.thesnakeroom.net
[email protected]
 
It looks to me like while the dragon was likely initially given to Nicole under the "breeder loan" arrangements, but that is somewhat irrelevant if different arrangements were made AFTER she had obtained the dragon for breeding.

Given other circumstances between Nicole and Ed, this is how I picture the situation...

Nicole and Ed agree to a breeder loan involving this dragon as a mutually benificial opportunity.
Nicole gets attached to said dragon.
Ed tells Nicole (since they are dating or engaged or whatever) that she can keep him. Ed himself stated directly in an alternative thread that he "would have given her the world"... World > bearded dragon...

Time passes, Nicole and Ed break up... Now with the perspective benifits Ed COULD have obtained from Nicole (financial or otherwise) gone, he begins suffering from his own version of "buyer's remorse" and wants the dragon returned to him.

Situations like this happen all the time, and based on previous testimonies regarding Ed, I would not expect ANYTHING better from him.

Of course this is merely speculation, but I did see Nicole at the Buffalo show carrying around the dragon in question, and the way she was acting regarding him indicated to me that it was a gift recently received.
 
ReptileJay said:
It looks to me like while the dragon was likely initially given to Nicole under the "breeder loan" arrangements, but that is somewhat irrelevant if different arrangements were made AFTER she had obtained the dragon for breeding.

Given other circumstances between Nicole and Ed, this is how I picture the situation...

Nicole and Ed agree to a breeder loan involving this dragon as a mutually benificial opportunity.
Nicole gets attached to said dragon.
Ed tells Nicole (since they are dating or engaged or whatever) that she can keep him. Ed himself stated directly in an alternative thread that he "would have given her the world"... World > bearded dragon...

Time passes, Nicole and Ed break up... Now with the perspective benifits Ed COULD have obtained from Nicole (financial or otherwise) gone, he begins suffering from his own version of "buyer's remorse" and wants the dragon returned to him.

Situations like this happen all the time, and based on previous testimonies regarding Ed, I would not expect ANYTHING better from him.

Of course this is merely speculation, but I did see Nicole at the Buffalo show carrying around the dragon in question, and the way she was acting regarding him indicated to me that it was a gift recently received.
Click to expand...

Since she has said it was a verbal contract breeding loan, I am going by what she said, and not putting words in her mouth. :shrug01:
 
deborahbroadus said:
Since she has said it was a verbal contract breeding loan, I am going by what she said, and not putting words in her mouth. :shrug01:
Click to expand...

I agree completely... She did in fact say that the dragon came to her as a breeder loan. However, she also claims that the dragon was a gift... And the only way that really makes sense is in the context suggested above.

Any argument over the validity of ANY claim in this situation is strictly speculatory, since ONLY Nicole and Ed know ALL the details of the transaction. However, I am pretty sure that if a person I was seriously romantically involved with asked me if he/she could keep an animal that I has lent them, I would likely not hesitate to say "sure".
 
ReptileJay said:
I agree completely... She did in fact say that the dragon came to her as a breeder loan. However, she also claims that the dragon was a gift... And the only way that really makes sense is in the context suggested above.

Any argument over the validity of ANY claim in this situation is strictly speculatory, since ONLY Nicole and Ed know ALL the details of the transaction. However, I am pretty sure that if a person I was seriously romantically involved with asked me if he/she could keep an animal that I has lent them, I would likely not hesitate to say "sure".
Click to expand...

I understand exactly what you are saying, being no stranger to relationships. I had a man give me a 7K "friendship" ring, he didn't want it back, however...he did want other things that he had NOT given me back. If I had asked friends about the "other things" and slanted things a bit, I am sure they would have supported my desire to keep those things as "gifts."

What has me askance about Nicole's claim that it was a gift is the very post that she is trying to use to manipulate us into siding with her by showing a part of Ed's email where she claims he doesn't care about the animal and uses that email to support her claim in post 47 http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174807&page=2

image001-1.png


What I notice missing in any of the emails that she posted other than her "word" is these simple words..

"Ed, why do you want him back now, just because we broke up, you GAVE him to me, remember?"

If I have missed these words in any of the emails where Ed is demanding his animal back..forgive me.:eek:
 
What I notice missing in any of the emails that she posted other than her "word" is these simple words..

"Ed, why do you want him back now, just because we broke up, you GAVE him to me, remember?"

If I have missed these words in any of the emails where Ed is demanding his animal back..forgive me.
Click to expand...

I agree! If she truly believed he was a gift where does it show this in their email communication?

While the email insert she provided does show that Ed knew the dragon needed to be treated it also shows that SHE knew that fact as well. I personally don't agree with anyone sending a sick dragon to anyone but if Ed believed she was capable of treating the animal and she was aware and willing I don't see how she can turn that into "he didn't love Prince".

Personally I think we are seeing a he said/she said and the truth is somewhere way out in left field never to be seen again.
 
deborahbroadus said:
What I notice missing in any of the emails that she posted other than her "word" is these simple words..

"Ed, why do you want him back now, just because we broke up, you GAVE him to me, remember?"

If I have missed these words in any of the emails where Ed is demanding his animal back..forgive me.:eek:
Click to expand...

True, emails do not show any such statement, but of course, both parties agree that the majority of their discussions have been via telephone as opposed to email... Perhaps the question was neglected due to redundancy... But who knows...
I do agree that one would expect to see such a statement in writing SOMEWHERE, but perhaps not.

I see this entire matter to be childish to be honest... No reason this all HAD to be dealt with here, especially considering that I highly doubt that any resolution will be reached regardless of perspective damage to reputations, and regardless of the suggestions of anyone here to either party involved.
 
Nicole, you admitted that you had a verbal contract with Ed regarding Prince. What I would suggest is that you either send PRince back to Ed, or, make a deal with Ed to purchase Prince. This way, you can wash your hands completely with Ed and move on. It IS the right thing to do;)
 
Off topic a little but not really:

I've posted quite a bit in the past in the Lonely Hearts forum. I think it is neat when two people in the reptile hobby are attracted to one another, because there are folks who don't care for reptiles, and when you find someone who shares your love for snakes/lizards etc. it can be nice.

Two hobbyists are entirely different than two business people in the same biz sometimes.

There is a reason that people say 'Don't mix business and pleasure'. It can be done if you are caring and careful, but there is always the possibility that 'happily ever after' won't happen. It isn't easy to entertain that idea in a newly blossoming relationship where stars are in your eyes and itches need to be scratched, but it's true.

If the chemistry calls out to you so strongly that the relationship is as irresistable as the sirens of ancient fable, try to keep a few unaffected synapses to make sure that property rights and business boundaries are clearly mapped out. If things never go south, you've been blessed, but if they do, you don't want to have to cope with a devastated business as well as a broken heart.
 
StrictlyExotics said:
Nicole, you admitted that you had a verbal contract with Ed regarding Prince. What I would suggest is that you either send PRince back to Ed, or, make a deal with Ed to purchase Prince. This way, you can wash your hands completely with Ed and move on. It IS the right thing to do;)
Click to expand...

Exactly Dean!..Send him the dragon and wash your hands of the whole mess.I'm sure Ed doesn't plan on keeping the dragon for himself he just wants him back out of spite.So he'll post him on here for 10 X what he's worth, get his $ $$,and walk away like he's won some major award...The important thing is he'll (hopefuly) walk away.

That's a small price to pay to get Ed out of your life.
 
ReptileJay said:
True, emails do not show any such statement, but of course, both parties agree that the majority of their discussions have been via telephone as opposed to email... Perhaps the question was neglected due to redundancy... But who knows...
I do agree that one would expect to see such a statement in writing SOMEWHERE, but perhaps not.

I see this entire matter to be childish to be honest... No reason this all HAD to be dealt with here, especially considering that I highly doubt that any resolution will be reached regardless of perspective damage to reputations, and regardless of the suggestions of anyone here to either party involved.
Click to expand...

You put up such a good argument for her side on what "could" have happened, that I just want to put a NAIL in her coffin! The most damning piece of evidence that was used was here http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174807 Post 11:

image001-2.png


Does this sound like someone that believes the dragon was a gift? It doesn't to me, but then I have a strange perception that seems to differ from most peoples.:eek:
 
deborahbroadus said:
You put up such a good argument for her side on what "could" have happened, that I just want to put a NAIL in her coffin! The most damning piece of evidence that was used was here http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174807 Post 11:

image001-2.png


Does this sound like someone that believes the dragon was a gift? It doesn't to me, but then I have a strange perception that seems to differ from most peoples.:eek:
Click to expand...

Granted, taken at face value, the answer to your question is a GLARING "NO". But, words spoken (or typed) in the heat of an argument can't ALWAYS be taken at face value.

I'm not by any means saying that Nicole is correct in this, nor that the dragon WAS in fact a gift, but just that the situation overall makes me feel that it could very well have been. To me, Ed's statement early on about "giving her the world", along with his statements about them being engaged force me to see it as a gift regardless of what may have been since (or prior for that matter) by either party...

Unfortunately, regardless of what is determined to be the truth in the matter, without hard evidence (which has yet to be shown [ie. Physical breeder loan contract signed by both parties, documentation showing that the dragon WAS in fact a gift, etc]), it will continue to be nothing more than a "he said/she said" battle between 2 individuals, neither of which have stellar reputations when it comes to 100% disclosure of facts.
 
ReptileJay said:
Granted, taken at face value, the answer to your question is a GLARING "NO". But, words spoken (or typed) in the heat of an argument can't ALWAYS be taken at face value.

I'm not by any means saying that Nicole is correct in this, nor that the dragon WAS in fact a gift, but just that the situation overall makes me feel that it could very well have been. To me, Ed's statement early on about "giving her the world", along with his statements about them being engaged force me to see it as a gift regardless of what may have been since (or prior for that matter) by either party...

Unfortunately, regardless of what is determined to be the truth in the matter, without hard evidence (which has yet to be shown [ie. Physical breeder loan contract signed by both parties, documentation showing that the dragon WAS in fact a gift, etc]), it will continue to be nothing more than a "he said/she said" battle between 2 individuals, neither of which have stellar reputations when it comes to 100% disclosure of facts.
Click to expand...

Jason, she herself admitted to having some sort of verbal contract though. A verbal contract is accountable in a cour of law. I, also, do understand your point of "Id give her the world" but not a bearded dragon phrase as well, however, that is not accountable in a court of law. The law would stipulate that she return the bearded to him because of the verbal contract that is now a known fact because she admitted to it.
 
StrictlyExotics said:
Jason, she herself admitted to having some sort of verbal contract though. A verbal contract is accountable in a cour of law. I, also, do understand your point of "Id give her the world" but not a bearded dragon phrase as well, however, that is not accountable in a court of law. The law would stipulate that she return the bearded to him because of the verbal contract that is now a known fact because she admitted to it.
Click to expand...

Very true Dean, a verbal contract is still a contract, however any verbal amendments to said contract which may have taken place over the course of their relationship would be equally as binding, would they not?
 
StrictlyExotics said:
The law would stipulate that she return the bearded to him because of the verbal contract that is now a known fact because she admitted to it.
Click to expand...

The problem with all this speculation is that we don't have enough facts. There is nothing to prevent someone from having title by contract and then subsequently making a gift. Did that happen? Who knows? With all the accusations flying around, there's not enough info to really know what happened.
 
Smells fishy to me.

It seems that the only way they can continue business as usual is if they "split up" and sell through the least damaged of the two. Amazing that they are still taking pot shots at Tom.
 
Back
Top