rarepythons
New member
critical bill said:
This is uncalled for and overly abusive. You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
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....
(Inguiry)Rare Pythons
- Thread starter tonychi01
- Start date
This is uncalled for and overly abusive. You should be ashamed of yourself.
hhmoore
tired & cranky shadow
So, are you saying that you are not the Christopher Casacci, of North Tonawanda (NY), owner of Sunlight Sheds, that was using the web address bcnorthernlight.com (presumably to direct people to your Sunlight Sheds site)...bcnorthernlight.com being incredibly close to bcnorthernlights.com, which is apparently a "global leader in the field of indoor growth chambers and cabinet equipment". http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1098.htmlrarepythons said:
rarepythons
New member
hhmoore said:
Yes I am that same person. Even though this isn't related to this thread, I've already had major issues with them advertising as 'sunlight sheds' through Google Adwords, eBay, etc. to pawn themselves off as us. I attached a screen shot below from today. The term Sunlight Sheds is federally trademarked by myself and they have been asked to cease and desist for over 2 years. Currently it's not really worth the legal battle for me to fight over the issue in court. Once again this is a whole can of worms that isn't related to this thread, but if you want to call and speak about I'll be happy to explain everything over the phone. It is a lengthy conversation.
rarepythons
New member
hopefully the attachment will show up here...
rarepythons
New member
rarepythons said:
here's a hyperlink since it doesn't seem to want to attach and display properly.
http://www.rarepythons.com/ScreenHunter_01 Feb. 28 08.14.gif
hhmoore
tired & cranky shadow
Nothing personal (really), but I hate telephones & avoid using them as much as I possibly can.rarepythons said:
I think, though, that some might see some pertinence to this thread. I'm sure they'll outline it for you.
back to cage cleaning, I go
grandmagreen
New member
Mooing Tricycle
Misanthrope / Childfree
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2005
- Messages
- 6,156
- Reaction score
- 140
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Great Barrington, Massachusetts
1. The Parties
The Complainant is BC Northern Lights Enterprises Ltd., Michael Wood, Surrey, B.C., Canada, represented by INC Business Lawyers.
The Respondent is Sunlight Sheds, Christopher Casacci, North Tonawanda, New York, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <bcnorthernlight.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 25, 2007. On July 27, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. Also on July 27, 2007, Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 15, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 4, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2007.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on September 25, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a Canadian producer of indoor growth chambers and cabinet systems for personal and commercial use. These systems use hydroponic technology to facilitate the rapid growth of plants.
The Respondent is a US commercial entity that offers similar products for sale.
The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on January 1 2005.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant submits the following:
(1) It is a global leader in the field of indoor growth chambers and cabinet equipment and sells its products to customers throughout the world. It has multi-million dollar sales and spent between $58,000 and $100,000 dollars on advertising and marketing in the years 2004 to 2006.
(2) The Respondent is a competitor of the Complainant. The Respondent is using the Domain Name to resolve to a website at “http://s178454875.onlinehome.us” that advertises the Respondent’s competing products.
(3) The Complainant has applied to register the trademark BC NORTHERN LIGHTS under application number 77200370 in the United States of America.
(4) The name “BC Northern Lights” is currently and was prior to the registration of the Domain a common law trademark of the Complainant. The Complainant has used the mark since at least December 2002.
(5) The Complainant has held the registration of the domain name <bcnorthernlights.com> since January 22, 2003 and has used the same in connection with its principal website at “www.bcnorthernlights.com” since at least May 2003.
(6) The Complainant’s goodwill in the mark “BC Northern Lights” is also evidenced by third-party references to the mark and to widespread recognition of the mark among industry publications and Internet users generally.
(7) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to both the Complainant’s mark and its own domain name both visually and aurally. The removal of the letter “s” does not distinguish it.
(8) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name. It is not an authorized licensee or reseller of services provided by the Complainant. It is not a holder of any similar trademark, nor does it offer its own goods or services under any similar mark. Neither the mark or any variant of “BC Northern Lights” appears on the Respondent’s website. The Respondent is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
(9) The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name both creates and takes advantage of “initial interest confusion” on the part of Internet users who may enter the name in the expectation of finding the Complainant’s website.
(10) The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name causes actual confusion among Internet users because the Domain Name resolves to the Respondent’s website which competes with that of the Complainant. The Respondent has taken no steps to prevent such confusion.
(11) The Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name is in bad faith as it is solely for the purpose of trading on the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark by baiting consumers in order for the Respondent to offer them products similar to those sold by the Complainant.
(12) The Complainant seeks a transfer of the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant has submitted evidence to support its contention that it has unregistered trademark rights in the name “BC Northern Lights”.
In addition to evidence of substantial sales and advertising expenditure under the mark, such evidence includes excerpts and advertisements from industry publications which reference the Complainant and its products under the mark, and the deployment and use of the mark on the Complainant’s own website at “www.bcnorthernlights.com” since at least May 2003.
Having evaluated such evidence, the Panel finds that the Complainant does have unregistered trademark rights in the mark “BC Northern Lights ” and notes in addition that such rights predate the registration of the Domain Name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s unregistered mark. The removal of the single letter “s” from the Complainant’s mark does not render the Domain Name sufficiently visually or aurally dissimilar to prevent confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions and finds that the Respondent has demonstrated no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Respondent has declined to file a Response in which any rights or legitimate interests might have been asserted and none are apparent from the evidence available to the Panel.
In particular, there is no evidence that that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the Domain Name, that its has ever been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the Domain Name or that it is making noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant operates a website located at “www.bcnorthernlights.com” and did so for two years prior to the registration of the Domain Name. The Respondent is using the Domain Name to resolve to a URL at “www.bcnorthernlight.com”, which redirects to its own website selling competing products with those of the Complainant.
The Respondent has filed no Response in the case and has not therefore disputed either the Complainant’s rights in the name “BC Northern Lights” or any of the other submissions that the Complainant has advanced.
In the circumstances, the Panel readily infers that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith. In particular, the Panel finds that Respondent is seeking to take advantage of both “initial interest confusion” and actual confusion on the part of Internet users attempting to find the Complainant’s website and products. This is to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill.
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <bcnorthernlight.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
The Complainant is BC Northern Lights Enterprises Ltd., Michael Wood, Surrey, B.C., Canada, represented by INC Business Lawyers.
The Respondent is Sunlight Sheds, Christopher Casacci, North Tonawanda, New York, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <bcnorthernlight.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 25, 2007. On July 27, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. Also on July 27, 2007, Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 15, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 4, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2007.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on September 25, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a Canadian producer of indoor growth chambers and cabinet systems for personal and commercial use. These systems use hydroponic technology to facilitate the rapid growth of plants.
The Respondent is a US commercial entity that offers similar products for sale.
The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on January 1 2005.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant submits the following:
(1) It is a global leader in the field of indoor growth chambers and cabinet equipment and sells its products to customers throughout the world. It has multi-million dollar sales and spent between $58,000 and $100,000 dollars on advertising and marketing in the years 2004 to 2006.
(2) The Respondent is a competitor of the Complainant. The Respondent is using the Domain Name to resolve to a website at “http://s178454875.onlinehome.us” that advertises the Respondent’s competing products.
(3) The Complainant has applied to register the trademark BC NORTHERN LIGHTS under application number 77200370 in the United States of America.
(4) The name “BC Northern Lights” is currently and was prior to the registration of the Domain a common law trademark of the Complainant. The Complainant has used the mark since at least December 2002.
(5) The Complainant has held the registration of the domain name <bcnorthernlights.com> since January 22, 2003 and has used the same in connection with its principal website at “www.bcnorthernlights.com” since at least May 2003.
(6) The Complainant’s goodwill in the mark “BC Northern Lights” is also evidenced by third-party references to the mark and to widespread recognition of the mark among industry publications and Internet users generally.
(7) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to both the Complainant’s mark and its own domain name both visually and aurally. The removal of the letter “s” does not distinguish it.
(8) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name. It is not an authorized licensee or reseller of services provided by the Complainant. It is not a holder of any similar trademark, nor does it offer its own goods or services under any similar mark. Neither the mark or any variant of “BC Northern Lights” appears on the Respondent’s website. The Respondent is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
(9) The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name both creates and takes advantage of “initial interest confusion” on the part of Internet users who may enter the name in the expectation of finding the Complainant’s website.
(10) The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name causes actual confusion among Internet users because the Domain Name resolves to the Respondent’s website which competes with that of the Complainant. The Respondent has taken no steps to prevent such confusion.
(11) The Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name is in bad faith as it is solely for the purpose of trading on the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark by baiting consumers in order for the Respondent to offer them products similar to those sold by the Complainant.
(12) The Complainant seeks a transfer of the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant has submitted evidence to support its contention that it has unregistered trademark rights in the name “BC Northern Lights”.
In addition to evidence of substantial sales and advertising expenditure under the mark, such evidence includes excerpts and advertisements from industry publications which reference the Complainant and its products under the mark, and the deployment and use of the mark on the Complainant’s own website at “www.bcnorthernlights.com” since at least May 2003.
Having evaluated such evidence, the Panel finds that the Complainant does have unregistered trademark rights in the mark “BC Northern Lights ” and notes in addition that such rights predate the registration of the Domain Name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s unregistered mark. The removal of the single letter “s” from the Complainant’s mark does not render the Domain Name sufficiently visually or aurally dissimilar to prevent confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions and finds that the Respondent has demonstrated no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Respondent has declined to file a Response in which any rights or legitimate interests might have been asserted and none are apparent from the evidence available to the Panel.
In particular, there is no evidence that that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the Domain Name, that its has ever been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the Domain Name or that it is making noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant operates a website located at “www.bcnorthernlights.com” and did so for two years prior to the registration of the Domain Name. The Respondent is using the Domain Name to resolve to a URL at “www.bcnorthernlight.com”, which redirects to its own website selling competing products with those of the Complainant.
The Respondent has filed no Response in the case and has not therefore disputed either the Complainant’s rights in the name “BC Northern Lights” or any of the other submissions that the Complainant has advanced.
In the circumstances, the Panel readily infers that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith. In particular, the Panel finds that Respondent is seeking to take advantage of both “initial interest confusion” and actual confusion on the part of Internet users attempting to find the Complainant’s website and products. This is to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill.
The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <bcnorthernlight.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Suncoast Herpetological
Lurking in the Shadows
grandmagreen said:
Now it's the Rare Pythons Institute And the bull keeps on flying.
Tell me, when does Rare Pythons University begin accepting students?
Mooing Tricycle
Misanthrope / Childfree
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2005
- Messages
- 6,156
- Reaction score
- 140
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Great Barrington, Massachusetts
rarepythons said:
I think now... it is related.
What the article that harald posted a link to says, is that the domain name you registered, is oddly similar to the company in Canada and that the name was to be transferred to them.
What are you talking about the Sunlight sheds? when that article hasnt a mention of it?
rarepythons
New member
Mooing Tricycle said:
Sunlight Sheds is the name of my company. BC Northern Lights is a competitor that has been using the name of sunlight sheds to further their business via a few means. Although I didn't bring legal action against the improper use of my company name, out of frustration I registered bcnorthernlight.com. The WIPO ordered me to transfer it to him, so I did.
rarepythons
New member
\Suncoast Herpetological said:
That was NOT a publicly posted picture, it was stripped off a hidden file from the website. I have a DBA for Rare Pythons Institute, which is registered and is simply an alternate DBA for the genetics work book balancing to go through.
AncientDNA
New member
I tend to avoid getting involved in, or even more than skimming threads like this, but after reading through this whole post...WOW!...I mean, how much more shady can this become!...Really!?!
Mooing Tricycle
Misanthrope / Childfree
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2005
- Messages
- 6,156
- Reaction score
- 140
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Great Barrington, Massachusetts
rarepythons said:
You used it out of frustration?
Maybe im missing it, and when i do my own search, i see no use from BCnorthernlights.com using the name Sunlight sheds. Mind pointing to a web address that proves they are using it? So far, those first few links, point directly to your site.
MikeCurtin
BOI Vigilante!
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,668
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 48
- Location
- Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey
Let's pretend for just a moment that your hydroponic products can/do not encourage and/or facilitate any illegal activities regarding controlled substances.
How can you (with a straight face) expect anyone to believe that the unscrupulous activity that you personally undertook in directing bcnorthernlights.com traffic to your website, which required legal action just seven months ago, has no impact on your credibility and integrity when it comes to ball python industry?
Couple that with the fact that you've made some "mistakes" early on by "accidently" stealing photos from others' websites, failing to follow the most basic quarantine protocol, and then trying to paint yourself as some genetics engineer (just one without walls).
How can you (with a straight face) expect anyone to believe that the unscrupulous activity that you personally undertook in directing bcnorthernlights.com traffic to your website, which required legal action just seven months ago, has no impact on your credibility and integrity when it comes to ball python industry?
Couple that with the fact that you've made some "mistakes" early on by "accidently" stealing photos from others' websites, failing to follow the most basic quarantine protocol, and then trying to paint yourself as some genetics engineer (just one without walls).
Cat_72
Back from exile :)
Ah, the fun stuff one can find when bored....
All of these quotes can be found here:
http://boards.cannabis.com/hydroponics/
All of these quotes can be found here:
http://boards.cannabis.com/hydroponics/
Mooing Tricycle
Misanthrope / Childfree
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2005
- Messages
- 6,156
- Reaction score
- 140
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Great Barrington, Massachusetts
I was willing to give you the benefit of a doubt here, and yet still this stuff is being drudged up.
I can accept a few mistakes in the past, and lack of knowledge at being new in this industry/hobby and being completely misinformed as to how one should go about getting into these things and proper quarantine procedures. Sure, everyone starts somewhere
But you are saying they are using the name Sunlight sheds. when YOU yourself said that you purposely used a similar domain name to theirs out of frustration.
who does that?
You need to come off straight in this, or you most definitely have lost even the miniscule support i was willing to give.
I Still dont think you are Johnson, but im really not quite sure what to make of this yet. its just far to constant for me to be comfortable with.
I can accept a few mistakes in the past, and lack of knowledge at being new in this industry/hobby and being completely misinformed as to how one should go about getting into these things and proper quarantine procedures. Sure, everyone starts somewhere
But you are saying they are using the name Sunlight sheds. when YOU yourself said that you purposely used a similar domain name to theirs out of frustration.
who does that?
You need to come off straight in this, or you most definitely have lost even the miniscule support i was willing to give.
I Still dont think you are Johnson, but im really not quite sure what to make of this yet. its just far to constant for me to be comfortable with.
Cat_72
Back from exile :)
Funny how the folks at Sunlight Sheds knew that someone else using THEIR pics without permission was illegal, and they were supposedly suing over it, ain't it?
SPJ
Well-known member
No more benefit of the doubt.
This guy may not be Johnson but he sure is someone you DON'T want to do business with.
The court ruling contradicts what he said.
He is purposely selling products fully aware they are used for illegal activity and even guarentees to get a "pound" of plants using his products.
I also have this gut feeling that he was in fact planning on selling all those CH babies from the gravid WC females as hets.
Buy a few real hets, have some morphs to show a photo of, misrepresent a lot of babies, make some quick cash and be gone before anyone can prove out the bogus hets.
Hmm. Does seem like a Johnson type scheme afterall.
This guy may not be Johnson but he sure is someone you DON'T want to do business with.
The court ruling contradicts what he said.
He is purposely selling products fully aware they are used for illegal activity and even guarentees to get a "pound" of plants using his products.
I also have this gut feeling that he was in fact planning on selling all those CH babies from the gravid WC females as hets.
Buy a few real hets, have some morphs to show a photo of, misrepresent a lot of babies, make some quick cash and be gone before anyone can prove out the bogus hets.
Hmm. Does seem like a Johnson type scheme afterall.
geckos70
Member
That is not a biosafety level 2 hood, which is required to work with viral particles or more specifically in this case lentiviral or retroviral particles. In addition, that is not a sterile environment. Usually doing this type of work requires some level of expertise and in most cases as least a Master of Science degree, which is a technician level.
So, what level of education do you have?
Just let me have one of your collaborators names.
In addition, I just did a pubmed search with the key words "Python" "Genetic" and "Engineering" and got nothing. Usually to participate in projects with animals or animal products a researcher has to have an established history with the particular species they are using to win IACUC support of the project. This is all listed in the National Research Council's "Guide of the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals". While reptiles are not covered by USDA they do fall under the jurisdiction of institutional IACUCs
In a nutshell, what are you doing? I do not care about concentrations, types of buffers, or any other parameters that would infringe upon proprietary information...just give me the Cliff's notes quick review. I am finishing my PhD in a biomedical research and I have plenty to do so I am not looking to steal your research. I am sure with your scientific experience, that you know even with a fairly lengthy discussion about your research the same experiment under the same conditions rarely works the same in two separate labs. I am really just trying to see if you are as full of crap as I think you are. Let’s face it, if you are lying about your research than I think it is safe to assume that you are lying about your intentions, which would mean you probably were going to try and sell a bunch of normal CH baby ball pythons as hets to unsuspecting buyers.
Michael Hance
So, what level of education do you have?
Just let me have one of your collaborators names.
In addition, I just did a pubmed search with the key words "Python" "Genetic" and "Engineering" and got nothing. Usually to participate in projects with animals or animal products a researcher has to have an established history with the particular species they are using to win IACUC support of the project. This is all listed in the National Research Council's "Guide of the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals". While reptiles are not covered by USDA they do fall under the jurisdiction of institutional IACUCs
In a nutshell, what are you doing? I do not care about concentrations, types of buffers, or any other parameters that would infringe upon proprietary information...just give me the Cliff's notes quick review. I am finishing my PhD in a biomedical research and I have plenty to do so I am not looking to steal your research. I am sure with your scientific experience, that you know even with a fairly lengthy discussion about your research the same experiment under the same conditions rarely works the same in two separate labs. I am really just trying to see if you are as full of crap as I think you are. Let’s face it, if you are lying about your research than I think it is safe to assume that you are lying about your intentions, which would mean you probably were going to try and sell a bunch of normal CH baby ball pythons as hets to unsuspecting buyers.
Michael Hance