I believe that the chips have already fallen where they may ..
Jim, if you had sold me an animal that was supposed to be captive bred and born and it came to my attention later that the animal may not actually be and you then could not or would not respond to my questioning it Jim, if you had sold me an animal that was supposed to be captive bred and born and it came to my attention later that the animal may not actually be and you then could not or would not respond to my questioning it I think it would not be a terrible thing for me to make a public post about it. After 10 months I certainly do not expect any compensation as has already been stated, but I do think that lying and bad business practices are worthy of making public. After 10 months I certainly do not expect any compensation as has already been stated, but I do think that lying and bad business practices are worthy of making public.
Emily. I am posting to enjoy a good debate, and hopefully not to impugn you too harshly. With that said, I highlighted in bold what I thought was the key word in your argument directed as a response to my spin, that being the word "
may". "May" also implies "may not", and while others have alluded to that possibility, I believe you have not. The animals could very well have been CBB
AND infected btw, as nothing you have presented eliminates that the animals were accurately represented as to origin. It has been pointed out here by many how these parasites have shown up elsewhere in otherwise stellar collections, and yet you want to continue on this point:
... if you had sold me an animal that was supposed to be captive bred and born and it came to my attention later that the animal may not actually be ...
I and others here know that parasites do not eliminate an animal from CBB origins .... hardly. As for all the other things Ed seems guilty of here; poor response time if at all, failure to cooperate with a paying customer (I have less standing for non-paying ones), and various other "bad business practices", I have no dispute. But I also think that when you characterize your actions here as "not a terrible thing for me to make a public post about it", you are also understating the thrust of your thread starter, as the main issue you have highlighted is the parasites from Ed, not all the other valid issues combined, IMMHO. Ed is certainly not without obligations on the parasite issue, and will be evaluated on how he responds, to include a choice to not respond adequately in the eyes of many if he continues that path. On the timeliness issue, I stand with Kelly and Randy and others. Call it the dilemma of having to prove a negative, which is the position that a complaint 10-months-late puts a seller in, but buyers have clear obligatons in transactions too, and as a buyer, you made choices that came up short to me. The question of whether or not you want compensation is not the issue, and is not a concession that otherwise validates your assertion that the animals had parasites from Ed. The parasites may have absolutely come from Ed. My issue is a sense of fair-play, and an honoring of TOS by both seller and buyer, and any other implied purchases. Accountability involving parasites diminishes with time removed from possession. What I see are two people, both ends of a 10 month old transaction, who fell short in their ongoing obligations to the deal, and have yet to address it in a way that wins me over to either side. Hypotheticals do not work well for me btw, as they only seem to only broaden and gunk-up arguements, rather than better define and restrict them.
I am glad that you caught all before an animal succumbed, and that all conditions are treatable. I am not shedding any tears over Ed.