• 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....

Mark Miller of Loco-Lizards Liar and a Thief

Mark himself said they were discussing a deal to replace the animal. It's in post 19. It seemed obvious to me why the animal was returned, at that time. Mark it would seem is liable for completing the agreed upon 2nd deal, or refunding the money. :shrug01:

Whether he does or not is yet to be seen.
 
I agree with with Rich, both John and Mark brought up that they had discussed John using a credit for this animal towards the purchase of another more expensive animal.

All we have for any kind of evidence in this is what both have said here and both did bring up this credit that Mark said he would give John towards the more expensive snake.. TOS in effect or not ? was the snake returned for this or that reason? All this was discussed by phone and we don't seem to have emails to confirm or deny any of this. So all I can see is what I mentioned above.

Now I can't buy all the way into Bobs take on this as there is nothing to confirm any of his suppositions. BUT yeah I can agree with you Bob in that I think Mark is being less than truthful and forthright ..Randy
 
Make no mistake about it Randy, some of my points require deeper thought then simply surface level. However, nobody can point to inconsistencies in John's posts. Heck, some of his posts even show you his errors in judgement. But, Mark's posts have been inconsistentant and flies in the face of common sense. So, if you have to lean to one side or the other which way you going to go? We know where most people are leaning that's for certain.

When you take the above facts into consideration along with information obtained elsewhere then you are left with only one conclusion. He's a thief. Plain and simple.

Griz
 
John,

Just curious, are there any issues with the female this male came in contact with?

Craig
 
Jim O said:
He addressed that in post number 42 of this thread.
Click to expand...

To go a long with the above quote.

John if you want to help padden your word (truthfulness) on this thread, can you please post a copy of the vet receipt? Since the majority of this thread is "he said she said," every bit of concrete evidence you can provide to prove what you type on here is true, helps your side.

Thank you,
Drenton Beres
 
Hey John, I was just curious as to what your TOS are when animal transactions are involved. I would think that by accepting the animal back, Mark would be accepting those terms, just as you accepted his in the initial transaction.
The initial TOS had expired. everyone agrees with that, but if John has TOS of his own somewhere, that Mark knows about, then isn't he bound by those?
Even if Mark said "screw you, don't send that snake back here", by accepting it, does he not accept the responsibility that comes with it?
 
Yes he did accept responsibility by accepting it back, He could of returned it to sender at senders expense but he did not do that. , Because he told John to send it back .What Mark should do in my opinion is call John and work out a reasonable trade(compensation), Also has it been stated? that while all this was going on Mark proceeded to sell the snake to someone , that Was part of the original trade on top of the 6500.00. Unless Mark does the right thing , In reality that was a stolen snake. Mark, That was plain Cold on your part for such a caring and generous guy that you have stated you are, Don't you think after all this you should have sent that snake back to John or the money that came from the sale. Its not Brian surgery Mark it Honest dealings.
 
Whose to say the animal is even dead? Mark has provided no pictures or vet reports to prove the animal is dead. Even if you are one of the very few who thinks that Mark has done no wrong then surely you have to agree that the burden of proving the animal is dead is upon Mark's shoulders?? Without said proof, then it's only reasonable to believe that Mark is either still in possession of the animal or he has sold it to someone else....right?

Jason Hormann of KCRD has given the analogy about taking a television back to the home theater store because the owner was, out of the goodness of his heart, going to attempt to see if he could fix the problem. When the home theater store owner could not fix it that it would be foolish to still hold him liable. Well, at least with the home theater store they would have returned the product, or at least provided proof, that it could not be fixed. Here, Mark has not provided any proof that the animal is even dead. Sure, the animal, according to John was not looking good, but whose to say Mark is not a "snake whisperer" and performed a miracle on it? At least, Mark, show John proof that the snake is dead. Surely you can do that?

Griz
 
Vet Receipt that Drenton asked for.

<CENTER><IMG SRC="http://www.johnmichaelreptiles.com/images/PhotoGallery/vet%20receipt.JPG"></CENTER
 
Here you go...
vet%20receipt.JPG
 
Maybe you can help me to understand something here John...
In post #1, you stated...

johnmartino said:
So on 5/1/07 I shipped the animal back to Mark.
Click to expand...

The date on that receipt is dated a month later. 06-02-07.


How was that managed if the snake was in Marks care at the time, and you never received the animal back? I'm a bit confused about some things now.


Rick
 
Meant to add also, that though that is a vet receipt, no doubt, it really doesn't offer anything except that an exotic reptile was seen. Doesn't even state that it was a snake. Was there anything else accompanying it? An exam sheet, path report?

I didn't catch where any of that was mentioned being done, but thought I should ask anyway.


Rick
 
Rick, earlier John mentioned that he had taken a different animal in for treatment at his vet. As I am sure you guessed, that could be easily stated simply in an effort to make people think that you take care of your animals. So, Drenton asked John to post his receipt thereby showing that John was yet again telling the truth. This receipt was not for the animal that Mark stole.

Also, it clearly states that this receipt is for a boa. It's in the itemized list section.

Griz
 
Probably missed that post. Been trying to keep up, but seems sometimes responses come faster than I can reply. LOL

Thanks for clearing that up Bob.

Rick
 
The receipt was for the female boa that was courted by the male blood boa. It was to help make sure nothing is just being said on here, plus it helps padden John's word. Thank you for the photo John. I don't know either of these two, John or Mark. I just know of their reputations and have seen tons of photos from happy customers on forums of the boas they have produced.

I do agree with John and others that Mark needs to post a photo of the dead boa (if it really is dead). I also agree John is owed compensation, but just not the full $6,500. How much in my opinion is still something I haven't come up with, but I would hope you two could work out. Mark not responding anymore doesn't help that part anymore (whether its from the advice of an attorney or not).

Thank you,
Drenton Beres
 
Back
Top