• 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....

KelliH and others Banned? Why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chameleon Company said:
Brian,
Seems a bit late, don't you think? Heard a lot of claims about how it was thought to be private, while at the same time they also knew there were no safeguards except the ability of each invitee to keep a secret.
Click to expand...


Jim,

You amaze me with your crystal ball. So you for a fact know they knew it wasn't a secret?

As for being too late, it is never too late to dig down and find the truth is it? Speculation does nothing except fuel more rumors don't you think?? ;)
 
Chameleon Company said:
Brian,
Seems a bit late, don't you think? Heard a lot of claims about how it was thought to be private, while at the same time they also knew there were no safeguards except the ability of each invitee to keep a secret. Maybe a little more caution would have been prudent, rather than assuming that all of the "invited" members would keep a secret. Maybe the first excuse, as so well pointed out by Griz early on with regards to character, should have been something other than to offer a "the door was supposed to be locked .... errrr kept secret"? As to whomever may have been the initial leak .... what a list of suspects ! :rofl:
Click to expand...

Well, I will be honest, this is a puzzling aspect to me. Yes, I believe the site was supposed to be a secret. Why? Because of talk of a "traitor" in their midsts that leaked that site to me. A "traitor" implies a betrayal of trust, and the question needs to be asked "Why were only people who could be "trusted" invited to that site?" "Trusted" in what way? What was the criteria for choosing who to invite? And why do it secretly? We get posts on this site VERY often from people saying "Hey, I just set up a new website. Come on over and check it out." Whether it is for testing or just trying to invite visitors, it is rare that anyone tries to keep their new website a secret from anyone. So what was different about this situation? :shrug01:

Just curious about the logic behind that particular decision.
 
Brian,
We have some agreement here, but first:
You amaze me with your crystal ball. So you for a fact know they knew it wasn't a secret?
Click to expand...

No crystal balls and maybe you could work on reading comprehension. The point is that it was only a secret, and if you don't have any idea what happens with secrets once you tell a "trusted" group yet, then let this whole mess serve as an example. When the only safeguard is a "secret", it is foolhardy to think you are safe. The site was not hacked into. Or as they say, "loose lips sink ships". Do you get it yet?

Very well said Rich, and your speculation only further illustrates the whole questionable concept of needing a "secret", and what it implies.

To where we agree Brian. Yes, they now have a dilemma of wondering who they trusted that they should not have. That is their problem. I would suggest that they not only need to find this person for their own peace-of-mind should they continue to need "secrets", but also so as to reevaluate their entire protocol of needing secrets, and then wondering how much "trust" they can put in trust. I'll bet there's a chapter on it in Rich's book about "Running a Website for Dummies" (post 350).
 
Chameleon Company said:
Brian,
We have some agreement here, but first:


No crystal balls and maybe you could work on reading comprehension. The point is that it was only a secret, and if you don't have any idea what happens with secrets once you tell a "trusted" group yet, then let this whole mess serve as an example. When the only safeguard is a "secret", it is foolhardy to think you are safe. The site was not hacked into. Or as they say, "loose lips sink ships". Do you get it yet?

Very well said Rich, and your speculation only further illustrates the whole questionable concept of needing a "secret", and what it implies.

To where we agree Brian. Yes, they now have a dilemma of wondering who they trusted that they should not have. That is their problem. I would suggest that they not only need to find this person for their own peace-of-mind should they continue to need "secrets", but also so as to reevaluate their entire protocol of needing secrets, and then wondering how much "trust" they can put in trust. I'll bet there's a chapter on it in Rich's book about "Running a Website for Dummies" (post 350).
Click to expand...


Jim I have a big sign behind my desk in my office which reads "Three people can keep a secret if tow people are dead". Nothing worse that what some people call a "traitor", "snitch", "rat", or some more colorful terms best not posted here. ;)

And Jim my reading comprehension skills are just fine. You just seem to come across in your posts to kind of know something you are not letting be known. Could this be the case since you tend to interject yourself in just about every situation here "knowing" this, that, or "it" pretty much "all" of the time.
 
Kelli is one of those people who likes this done right, perfectly to be exact. The site that was running for a while was just a test site she was playing around with to get the feel for everything. Kelli has a few friends she told about it, they tell a few friends, etc. So, she wanted it to be a secret because she did not want the site open to the public before she was ready for them, before all the kinks were out of the system. I don't see anything wrong with that, I do similar things all the time.

WebSlave said:
Well, I will be honest, this is a puzzling aspect to me. Yes, I believe the site was supposed to be a secret. Why? Because of talk of a "traitor" in their midsts that leaked that site to me. A "traitor" implies a betrayal of trust, and the question needs to be asked "Why were only people who could be "trusted" invited to that site?" "Trusted" in what way? What was the criteria for choosing who to invite? And why do it secretly? We get posts on this site VERY often from people saying "Hey, I just set up a new website. Come on over and check it out." Whether it is for testing or just trying to invite visitors, it is rare that anyone tries to keep their new website a secret from anyone. So what was different about this situation? :shrug01:

Just curious about the logic behind that particular decision.
Click to expand...
 
And for the record. I hate not being able to edit something as simple as "tow" into what it should be "two". It down right drives me insane to miss something like that and see it after I hit that darn little submit reply button. :slamit:
 
bcfos said:
And for the record. I hate not being able to edit something as simple as "tow" into what it should be "two". It down right drives me insane to miss something like that and see it after I hit that darn little submit reply button. :slamit:
Click to expand...
You can thank Mr. Ashton for that......
 
And a great sign it is Brian. As to whatever other bothers of yours seem to have crawled into that place where the sun doesn't shine, maybe you can turn to that same wall tomorrow and have a conversation with it, if for no other reason than this isn't the place for it, and I could care less. Other Mods made references to your reputation earlier in the thread. I don't care about that either. That was then, other posts, threads, whatever. Get a grip.
 
WebSlave said:
I would strongly suggest that everyone here tone down the comments towards each other. I know emotions are running high, but that is not sufficient excuse to be belittling each other. I am trying hard to not dispense too many warning points, but there are limits to what is going to be tolerated here.
Click to expand...

HMmm being omniscient I'm surprised you missed this.
 
Otter_23 said:
HMmm being omniscient I'm surprised you missed this.
Click to expand...

Good point. From this point on, things go hard line on jabs being taken at each other. Disagreements are in order, slights and derogatory innuendos are not. I will err on the side of being harsh here, so be warned.
 
Th3HiddenGecko said:
This feels like the September 11th attacks except it's on the leopard gecko forum.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, this is likely the most ignorant statement ever made on any of the Fauna forums.
:rolleyes:
 
Gecko_Den said:
Congratulations, this is likely the most ignorant statement ever made on any of the Fauna forums.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sam, I think that is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen on the Internet.

Oh yeah, and for those that are wondering, I have seen the whole Internet.
 
In the poster's defense I think they were speaking of the feeling of signing on to Fauna and finding out that all h*ll broke loose while they were away. I don't think they were trying to say it was of the magnitude of 911. Obviously it was not a good analogy.
Just my opinion.
Kevin
 
A similar reference was made to 9-11 in the other thread in Gecko Forums over the weekend, although I don't recall by whom. It was met with similar posts of being a poor choice of analogies. I don't believe any disrespect was meant in either case, but also consider it a poor choice.
 
Intense Herpetoculture said:
I don't see anything wrong with that, I do similar things all the time.
Click to expand...

Oh no Justyn, you did it now.
 
:deadhorse

That smiley just about sums up this thread for me.
 
Well actually, I kind of feel like that horse....... :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top