Okay, I had a momentary lapse and hit the 'add reply' button, so here's the rest...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Add it up folks, it's enough reasonable doubt to take seriously. In police it's called LOGIC, the most logical explaination is 9 times out of 10 the real answer. As for the Oliver Stone theories, man, save that for the mystery books</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Unfortunately, it can also be said that there is a reasonable doubt on the other side of the coin. As I previously said, no tangible proof has been provided. If you honestly think that what people are posting is "Oliver Stone theories", then you might not have been in herps long enough. Cons are just as prevelant in this business as in any other. I'm not saying that Art is one of these people.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4) Liability for an item (unless specifically stated otherwise) can extend beyond the first 48 hours in my book.
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
9300 hours? As I have stated time and again, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone that will offer a thirteen month satisfaction guarantee, especially after the animal has been dead for seven months.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You buy a rolex and find out 2 years later that INSIDE it's a fake.
You guy a chevy and find out 3 years later that the seat belts are defective. My boy you are liabel, it's call a RECALL.
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Apples and oranges. In the above circumstances, you actually have the merchandise to support your claim. Try going to a jeweler and demanding a refund/credit for the watch without having the watch in hand. Or, go to Chevy and complain about seatbelts on a car that was totaled several months ago.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for getting documentation from Gulf whatever a year after the deal, now that sounds like the most FISHY thing of all. Hold on I have the winning lottery ticket for last week also, hold on, i'm filling it out now, almost finished, there it IS!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Almost as fishy as a rabies vaccination certificte for a snake? Or just as fishy as seeking compensation for a snake without having any tangible evidence?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now that's just my opionion, please don't cruxify me as is common place here. I want to buy some balls. Just not from anyone on these threads.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
The crucification will be in regards to posting under two different names. As you have stated, the most logical explanation is nine times out of ten the real answer. However, I'm not going to conclude that this isn't just that one time out of ten that things are not what they appear.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Neither guy sounds like they are bad guys, just bad things happened. But the mudslinging is way out of hand.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
I'm curious then. Why did you include some subtle ad hominem in your post if you don't feel that Eric is a bad guy and the mudslinging is way out of hand?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sounds to me like one guy has the facts and the other one is creating them on the spot, as he goes along.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
I agree. It does look like Eric has stated all the facts.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that there is a good question here:
What if the het turned out not to be a het?</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Since it's apparently dead, I guess we'll never know. I think there's another good question here though- What if people actually posted using just one name?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Agreed that both should have probed the snakes. But does everybody have probes? Are we saying to beginners, it's your fault for not sexing the snake. Is this the message we are leaving?</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Pretty much. If they can't sex the snake themselves, they should at least have access to someone locally that can do it, whether it be from a friend, herp society, or vet.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are we doing good clean business not shirking our responsibilities.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Yes. The seller has a responsibility to honestly represent an animal. Mistakes made in good faith are excusable, but should be taken care of, so long as the seller is notified within a reasonable amount of time. In this instance, a reasonable amount of time has passed, and then some. Additionally, the only "proof" presented by the buyer was a rabies vaccination certificate with the words 'on necropsy' penned in.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We all have a responsibility to bring a good face to the hobby</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
It applies to the buyer just as well. It's a sad state of affairs when sellers have to dedicate a full page of their site to terms & conditions just to protect themselves from certain tactics and cons.