This has turned into something beyond reprehensible.
Conclusions are being drawn with insufficient evidence to support them, accusations are being looked at as if there were no alternatives andthere's a definite lynch mob kind of feeling to the entire thing.
I don't like Ed. I actively dislike Ed for a number of reasons. That said, as far as this situation goes he's being stomped on without justification.
Ten months after animals leave his posession they're found to have a parasite load and the current owner has the audacity, the sheer gall to decide without question or hesitancy that it's the fault of the dealer. More than three hundred days in her care and the idea that the issue was accidently introduced on her end doesn't even seem to enter into her head. It's an absurdity.
The thread is created anyway. Conclusions are pulled directly out of the collective asses of some people who would like to see Ed fail and apparantly do not care by what method that happens. No matter that condemning him includes writing tirades that go against all common sense and ignoring biological fact because it's inconveniently counter to their goal. Furthermore, after wandering into the Fauna chat on Parasite Gate: Day One and getting to see a few lines of what were clearly a calculated planning session outlining a strategy of attack- I'm personally convinced that Emily was strongly influenced by parties with an agenda into making her post.
A few people wander by, notice that there's some highly inaccurate garbage being thrown around about parasite transmission and impartially correct those pieces of misinformation.
Denied that line of attack, Ed's most rabid attackers decide that the prescence of parasites ten months after a sale is apparantly a conclusive piece of information that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he misrepresented wild caught or captive hatched animals as captive bred. A leap Evil Kneival couldn't make if he had NASA backing him with new rocket cycle designs.
Now we have more than one person who's refferencing the email correspondance from Post Eleven of this thread and claiming that Ed's response was damning. Look back at that post, read the text of the email that was supposedly sent to Ed, then read his supposed response. Ed's response is clearly, without question, a response to a question asking if the animals sent were CB or not. A question that is never asked in the email that he was alledgedly responding to. It's a broken email chain, something is clearly missing and it's omission constitutes a blatant, bold faced LIE on the part of Emily or whoever is coaching her in her responses. "I sent this" "This was his response" when the response makes absolutely no sense in relation to the email he was supposedly responding to. Ed's response reads a lot more like it was issued as a reply to an email asking if the snakes in that sale were CB, CH or WC and, not remembering the specific sale, he replies that he'll need to check his records. Where in any of that is there guilt of wrongdoing?
Where in ANY of this is there wrongdoing?
Ed sent some snakes, the buyer was happy for ten months and then finds a parasite load. They send him an email, according to their timeline, the first one on the subject, that contains unfounded accusations and has an ultimatum as it's closing line. His response was short and unhelpful but the approach was agressive and combative. No wrongdoing.
He may have sent animals that contained a parasite load so minor and difficult to detect that the new owner wasn't aware of it for nearly a year. No wrongdoing.
This thread is created and immediately explodes with contributions from people who, like myself, don't like Ed. Anyone know for a fact how long the thread was when he first saw it or was informed that it existed? I have no idea myself but it looks possible based on the time frame between the first fifty odd posts that it was pages and pages long. The bulk of that being made up of what I can only call abusive judgement founded in erronious reasoning. What could he have possibly said at that point that would have explained *anything*? What could he possibly say now? It's clear that nothing but an admission of guilt will be accepted by some of his detractors, there are many, many people who have clearly made up their minds and won't even attempt any kind of impartiality if asked to weigh evidence that might exhonerate him.
And that isn't sitting well with me. This is not a situation where someone has clearly and without question performed a misdeed for which they are being held culpable. This isn't an analytical and logical breakdown of suspicion or proof or evidence; it's an attack. An attack fueled by personal vendettas and supported by nothing more than spurious reasoning and baseless accusations. I find myself looking at posts made by people who I generally feel have the right idea and hating their tactics, these filthy methods that pervert the honest ideals these same individuals proclaim themselves as holding. So it's all about honest analysis and weighing the facts and making an informed and unbiased judgement based on the realities of a situation... right up until there's a chance to gang rape a guy who isn't widely admired.
I think Ed's a liar, a thief, a conman and generally a pile of gently steaming crap pretending to have the same intrinsic value as an actual human being BUT I won't lie to convince someone else of my viewpoint. I won't twist facts, I won't omit information, I won't turn inane assumptions into accusations and I won't mistake personal animosity for proof. Scum needs to be shown to people as the slimey dirty thing it is... and ONLY the slimey dirty things it ACTUALLY is. People need to be comdemned for what they have actually done wrong, held culpable for things they are actually guilty of. Not just anything they can be beaten into not refuting.
Some people I respect have behaved in a way that I do not. If you think that statement applies to you, then it probably does.
The almighty buck can even buy you extra powers if you need them. 