Is the Fall From Grace fatal to the Good Guy Certs?

[Dennis Hultman]

But call me dense if you like, but I still don't see what the connection is with that NERD thread and (1) the accused changing of the rules about business transactions, and/or (2) the period of time when non-paying members could vote in the BOI GGC section when I was on my 1 week "sabbatical". Is that what this is really all about? Will someone just connect the dots for me?

Simple. She has a conspiracy theory.We all play different roles in it..

 

[sirenofthestorm]

Whitney,

You are the one playing symantics here. You are the one trying to twist the reality of the situations so it fits snuggly inside your conspiracy theory. I am done repeating myself. Good luck on finding your invisible 6 foot rabbits.

How is that twisting the reality of things? You can call me a conspiracy theorist or a 50 yr old man with a wife and kids but that doesn't make it true. I never mentioned any conspiracy, the whole "clique" argument came up when I was explaining why I voted the way I did in this thread. Its gone way off track as people are doing god knows what for I don't even want to know what motivation... I simply provided my reasons for my choice and explained how I percieved certain actions, and if people think I'm wrong, they think I'm wrong. That is all there is to it.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

No Paul, I don't like to see any "bad guy" get ripped apart limb from limb on the BOI. Once someone has admitted they are wrong and are going to make restitution in whatever form that may be, its my opinion that there's nothing more to be said other than the person wronged confirming that they did receive restitution. Don't put words into my mouth please. What I said was that he got treated differently. He did, until the evidence was overwhelming. All I am saying is that he got treated differently, not that there should be a bloodbath on every single bad guy thread.

 

[PaulSage]

No Paul, I don't like to see any "bad guy" get ripped apart limb from limb on the BOI. Once someone has admitted they are wrong and are going to make restitution in whatever form that may be, its my opinion that there's nothing more to be said other than the person wronged confirming that they did receive restitution. Don't put words into my mouth please. What I said was that he got treated differently. He did, until the evidence was overwhelming. All I am saying is that he got treated differently, not that there should be a bloodbath on every single bad guy thread.

What you said was:

I am talking only about people defending someone who did something wrong, in spite of evidence to the contrary and his admission of guilt..

That's why I asked WHO was defending him. You haven't answered that yet. And I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was asking you a question.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

But call me dense if you like, but I still don't see what the connection is with that NERD thread and (1) the accused changing of the rules about business transactions, and/or (2) the period of time when non-paying members could vote in the BOI GGC section when I was on my 1 week "sabbatical". Is that what this is really all about? Will someone just connect the dots for me?

I think if you had deleted the thread for the reasons you stated, a paying member could have posted it in the BOI in a more articulate manner, correct?

And I think its been made clear that there was no changing of the rules, but rather that the understanding of who could and could not vote on GGC had changed. The instructions that you wrote stated that people should vote after business transactions. Jim pointed that out in the nerd thread to david and told him that a withdrawl of his negative vote was in order since he did not conduct a business transaction with them (it was the vote that led Jim O. to assume that david was a disgruntled customer). Then when people who had not done business with Bill Leverton started voting on his GGC poll, some people sought clarification of what was and was not allowed in the GGC polls. The registered members were again not allowed to vote, and it was interpreted by some people as trying to curtail registered members from voting negatively against a big breeder. You said that is not the case, and there's really nothing else to be said on the subject. No one knows your motivations except for you, and we have to take you at your word.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

Paul, post 154 in this thread. There's a link. Neil and Wendy and I can't remember who else (not to pick on them those are just the names I recall) insist that the snake is different for some time.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

All I am saying is that he got treated differently, not that there should be a bloodbath on every single bad guy thread.

I can't speak for anyone else but

I can’t agree with cutting you any slack or making any excuses for you. I am not going to write you up a road map on how to get back up to the top. What you did is such a big problem for many here already.
It is hard enough to trust anyone as it is.
Instead, I am going to handle it the same way all of us including you have in the past on so many threads. Bill, I am sorry. You’re a liar and thief and yes a scammer. Anyone in their right mind will NEVER trust you again.

 

[PaulSage]

Paul, post 154 in this thread. There's a link. Neil and Wendy and I can't remember who else (not to pick on them those are just the names I recall) insist that the snake is different for some time.

So that's your impression of those posts? That they're defending Bill? They were casting their doubt as to whether or not the snakes were the same. That was before he admitted to it, so I don't think it's accurate to say that they were defending a guilty person. The only way your statement makes sense is if you KNEW 100% for a fact that the snakes were the same before the rest of us did (when Bill admitted it). Am I missing something here?

 

[sirenofthestorm]

What post number was that, Dennis? Its late, and I've had a long day.

I again should have been obvious and explicit and stated that until the evidence that the same snake was in both pictures, he was treated differently. Please excuse the oversight.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

The only way your statement makes sense is if you KNEW 100% for a fact that the snakes were the same before the rest of us did (when Bill admitted it). Am I missing something here?

That's an impossible situation. Memory is fallible, people interpret things differently, there is no way to ever KNOW whether someone is lying 100% without inferring things from available evidence and comparing it to someone's story. There aren't little video cameras capturing everyone's every move and thought, and until then people will have to make reasonable assumptions about what is and is not credible evidence and base their decisions on that. Please point out to me another recent thread where a few members who post copiously stick up for someone who later admits to be a bad guy despite some pretty strong evidence that what he says is a lie. Of course we weren't there when he recieved the box, but to my mind it is obvious they are the same snakes after that close up of each saddle was posted side by side. Its a reasonable assumption, is it not?

 

[Dennis Hultman]

What post number was that, Dennis? Its late, and I've had a long day.

I again should have been obvious and explicit and stated that until the evidence that the same snake was in both pictures, he was treated differently. Please excuse the oversight.

#208 I did not post the whole thing here but if you like, I can.

I had this one on the first page too.

Bill maybe you can help Lee by telling him the origin of your snake.

 

[sirenofthestorm]

Thanks I appreciate it, I will try to look at the thread again more carefully another day, I am done waiting up to take an online quiz for class and now its time to sleep.

 

[PaulSage]

That's an impossible situation. Memory is fallible, people interpret things differently, there is no way to ever KNOW whether someone is lying 100% without inferring things from available evidence and comparing it to someone's story. There aren't little video cameras capturing everyone's every move and thought, and until then people will have to make reasonable assumptions about what is and is not credible evidence and base their decisions on that.

I agree. So then why is it that you say they were defending Bill before he admitted to what he did?

Ya know what, forget it. Usually I have great comprehension skills, but it seems to me that you've been talking yourself in circles, and I can't make sense out of your word choice or justifications.

 

[WebSlave]

I think if you had deleted the thread for the reasons you stated, a paying member could have posted it in the BOI in a more articulate manner, correct?

Yes, someone certainly could have done that. But would they have? Beats me.

And I think its been made clear that there was no changing of the rules, but rather that the understanding of who could and could not vote on GGC had changed. The instructions that you wrote stated that people should vote after business transactions. Jim pointed that out in the nerd thread to david and told him that a withdrawl of his negative vote was in order since he did not conduct a business transaction with them (it was the vote that led Jim O. to assume that david was a disgruntled customer). Then when people who had not done business with Bill Leverton started voting on his GGC poll, some people sought clarification of what was and was not allowed in the GGC polls. The registered members were again not allowed to vote, and it was interpreted by some people as trying to curtail registered members from voting negatively against a big breeder. You said that is not the case, and there's really nothing else to be said on the subject. No one knows your motivations except for you, and we have to take you at your word.

Where exactly IS that quote coming from stating about people voting after business transactions? I see it quoted, but darn if I can remember where it was original posted. Evidently other people can find it at will, however.

While certainly the Bill Leverton situation called my attention to the problem I had possibly created by allowing open access to the polls in that section, I never considered that anyone would think I was tightening it back up in an effort to protect Bill. I wouldn't know him if I fell over top of him, so sorry about that, I have no reason whatsoever to side either with him or against him in any issue whatsoever. Is Bill considered as a "big breeder"? Or is this about NERD again?

Speaking of NERD, I can't recall speaking even one word to anyone from NERD at all, for any reason. So I really have no reason at all to try to protect them, nor would I, even if they were my best friends. I really have no incentive whatsoever to do so. I have not stepped in to protect any of the biggest advertisers on this site, nor anyone who has paid money in any form for anything having to do with this site at all. I have fined and suspended advertisers, I have refused to delete posts that they found objectionable, and I have always treated them just like everyone else. I have LOST advertisers because I have not done what they wanted me to do for them, that I felt would call my ethics into question by doing so. Heck, we have a perfect example RECENTLY of my banning one of the biggest advertisers on this site at that time, knowing full well I would lose his advertising and his top level membership fee by doing so.

Neither Bill Leverton nor NERD are, or have ever been, advertisers on this site. Maybe if they were spending $100K per year here I might turn a blind eye to something that was questionable, but that just is not the case. Sorry, but I can't be bought for the price of a measly membership fee.

Anyway, sorry, but there were no motivations on my part beyond what I have stated here. I REALLY was mostly away from all of the BS on this site during that week I was gone. Matter of fact, if it hadn't been but for one of my mods calling things to my attention concerning the Bill Leverton thread, I wouldn't have even noticed it at all. Dennis Thomas posted a message stating that he had deleted Bill Leverton's BOI GGC thread, and THAT got my attention that something was unwinding that I needed to take a look at.

Sorry, it's late, and I am just not going to proof read this post. Please excuse any fumbled sentence structure.........

 

[ms_terese]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

I don't know how I came across as convinced that I am or am not a part of any website's success, or if you were speaking only of your experiences, in which case I apologize for interpreting you the wrong way.

Whit, I realize this was posted a dozen or so pages ago, but it seems that while I was flying over a few states this evening there was some sort of posting spree~

Anyway, I wasn't insinuating anything about you or your relevance. I was commenting on my lack of passion in debating the issues surrounding forums these days. Sorry if it came across as snide, that wasn't my intention.

 

[Lucille]

One last thing, thanks for the offer of help Lucille, but my school has a very strict plagiarism policy and it boils down to I have to use my own thoughts and "knowledge" or else I can and will be failed and expelled.

I tried to extend the hand of courtesy, to let you know that if you needed help, we would be here for you. Here is what I wrote to you yesterday evening:


"Whitney, get a nice snack and get comfy in front of your computer, and do your assignment, email us if you need help, between all of us someone will be able to lend a hand, and we can chat more when you return here."

How you got from there to the concept of plagiarism, I have no idea. There is a huge gulf between helping out a little by talking about ideas and concepts, to what you are saying.
When my kids were little, I would always say things like 'try the library' or 'have you read this particular book'.

I am **puzzled** by why you would even bring it up, or how you got from my general friendly offer of help to what you wrote.

 

[Karen Hulvey]

Again about NERD. I do not know what happen after my last post in that thread, because once he said it was not his problem to back up his accusations I lost all interest in hearing anything else he had to say and did not return to the thread.

If you couldn't figure out just from looking at the pictures that what they did was 100% wrong, then I feel for you. If it was Joe Blow standing there with venomous snakes in hand with people all around, you and every other person who seems to live here would be spewing so many posts it would be unbelieveable. But no, people either let it go or say they don't like what they see in the pictures. Hypocrites.

And personally, I do not care if it is NERD, New Breeder On The Block, or my own flesh and blood. I call a spade a spade.

You didn't call a spade a spade after viewing incriminating pictures now did you?

Right is right and wrong is wrong, who you are does not have any effect on that.

Right. That's what a hypocrite is, somebody who says one thing but does another. Your actions(or should I say inaction) say that you CONDONE what NERD did.

And you wonder why TRR has a bad rep here? Because every month or two another one of you come over here spouting the EXACT SAME RHETORIC that the previous person was spouting.

Sorry just because I'm a member here and there doesn't mean anything. I have way more posts here than there so what's the relevance again? I'm also a member at NERDs site too. I didn't even know who the kid was posting those pictures and I did go check it out for myself and hopped over to NERDs site and saw for myself.

The way I see it most people over here don't give a rat's behind that NERD plays with their hots within inches of bystanders. If you weren't afraid to post it, you would. But all I see is everyone ganging up on people who did speak out against it. Hypocrites.

 

[Jim O]

The instructions that you wrote stated that people should vote after business transactions. Jim pointed that out in the nerd thread to david and told him that a withdrawl of his negative vote was in order since he did not conduct a business transaction with them

Actually, once again you need to get your facts straight. The following is post #60

Okay, I WAS WRONG on NERD supporting voids and saying they do so, I truely sorry to KAra and Kevin. Yes I should have contacted them first, as we all know being up late at night does help us make good choices. I am also sorry for aounding cocky as someone has mentioned.

Psst #61 was a spelling correction by David. Post #62 was

A retraction of the "Bad Guy" at http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/for...ead.php?t=65172 would also be in order

POst #63 reads

Okay, I WAS WRONG on NERD supporting voids and saying they do so, I truely sorry to KAra and Kevin. Yes I should have contacted them first, as we all know being up late at night does help us make good choices. I am also sorry for aounding cocky as someone has mentioned.

Now that my young friend, is showing some maturity.

And lastly, post #65

Now that my young friend, is showing some maturity.

Yes it is. I am almost tempted to give him postive rep points for it.

So you see, my suggestion (not demand as some have accused me of) was in direct response to his apology and admission that he was wrong. I was reminding him that as long as he was apologizing that he should also take that action. Of course it was his choice, and one he made of his own free will. I suggest that since you are so interested in relating the factual history of that thread you actually read it yourself Whitney, rather than rely on what others may have told you. If you had done that you would actually know the factual basis for the apology I mentioned earlier in this thread. Actually, if you read this thread in its entirety it's in here too. In college I believe they call it referencing the original source material. At least they did when I got my degrees.

Oh, and do ask David if I gave him some positive Rep Points and told him he was a good guy, would ya?

 

[Jim O]

The way I see it most people over here don't give a rat's behind that NERD plays with their hots within inches of bystanders. If you weren't afraid to post it, you would. But all I see is everyone ganging up on people who did speak out against it. Hypocrites.

OK Karen, yet AGAIN

What NERD did was as dumbass as it comes, but it does not rise to the level of "they cannot be trusted to give you what you pay for or to honestly do business with". It was dumb, some might call it criminal, but it in no way impugned, say, the value of a Ball Python or Blood Python that someone might buy from them. So, for the UMPTEENTH time, yes I am outraged at what I saw in those pictures (there Karen, I have said it YET AGAIN) but in my opinion it is not a reflection of their business ethics, just a reflection of bad judgement, perhaps stupidity.

Karen,
You are obviously insane or intentionally lying with your statement. Which is it?

 

[Sasheena]

It's early, I doubt I can be as eloquent as normal...

Okay... regarding siren and the whole claim of favoritism etc.

I think that the biggest problem is that YOU determined Bill's guilt at some point PRIOR to his admission, and once YOU were certain he was guilty, you felt that people who did not share your belief were granting favoritism towards BILL. In actual fact (with perhaps one or two notable exceptions) NOBODY in Bill's thread gave him a shred of favoritism. Once he admitted his guilt, that was it, game over. I do think there was one post that was tongue-in-cheek speculating that perhaps he Didn't Do It... and his confession was some self-destruction mechanism, but in general, he wasn't treated any differently than anyone else who might do the same thing and make the same confession.

As far as the NERD thread goes, WebSlave says it should have been on the BOI, and if it had been, I might have read it and had an opinion on it. I did NOT read it, nor do I feel like going there because while I really HATE jerks who jeapardize our hobby, my small voice doesn't count for much, and the people with STRONG opinions are SO LOUD that they do the job just fine.

I think that emotions are high regarding the NERD thread more than the Bill thread, and are causing several people who I respect to act in a way that seems irrational... at least out of context of the now-closed-and-improperly-placed thread.. and this saddens me.

It's a good thing I put a time limit on this poll!