Bill, while I appreciate that there is a lot of difficulty understanding some things, I feel that your continued focusing on this guy's understanding of what he actually owned and criticism of his not knowing it wasn't what he thought a bit distracting to the actual case in point. (not that I really KNOW the case in point)
critical bill said:
You mean to tell all of us that youve never once seen a lavender albino to know the difference? I would think if I had any doubt as to what I was buying or selling I would do a quick search on the internet for some photos. Yahoo search kicked back 152 results and most with photos.
Snakes are misrepresented all the time. People just getting into the hobby, and even those who've been around a while can be misled and not even know it. Only recently, after having a pair of california kingsnakes for 18 months, have I learned that they AREN'T what they were sold to me as. *shrug* no big deal of course, I wasn't selling them. If I HAD tried to sell them (as I plan to do later this year) and the truth was pointed out to me.... I would have been embarrassed and then corrected the error asap! But I don't consider it a huge fault to believe one thing is true for an extended period of time, so long as you are open to correction when the proof is given to you.
critical bill said:
You know what they say about thought? He crapped his pants.
Why do you find this sort of comment helpful to demonstrate your point?
I just feel that focusing on this aspect doesn't necessarily focus the reader's attention on the pertinent facts.
Let me see if I understand the pertinent facts as presented.
Once Upon A Time...
(A) Someone was selling some snakes, one labeled a lavendar albino, another labeled as a scarlet king. Also there were two (?) that were purchased as hybrid ruthveni/pueblans?
(B) Someone else came along and happily purchased the snakes.
(C) Said snakes arrived in perfect health and ate mice and were happy members of this person's snake collection for some time.
(D) At some point in time the owner of these four marvels of reptilian health were obsolete to the collection of their new owner and he decided to sell them, calling them the exact thing they were sold to him as.
(E) At this point in time several people saw the ads and did not hesitate to correct the seller .... his lavendar albino was a normal albino, his scarlet king was not a scarlet.
From here on I have not seen a chronological statement of facts listed without so much editorializing that there is no way to truly follow exactly what happened. It would be nice to learn exactly what happened. This is what I think happened.
(F) Having heard that his snakes were not what they were being advertised as, the seller decided to try to sell his ruthv/pueblan hybrids and also used the same photo of the not-really-a-scarlet-kingsnake.
(G) Someone did buy the ruthveni/pueblan hybrids only to find that there was a ruthveni and a pueblan sold to them and not hybrids.
(H) So far nobody has bought the "lavendar albino" or the "scarlet kingsnake" and the person has either changed his ads to reflect the real species or has removed the advertisements completely.
My Challenge to Both of You
List the facts. If using proper punctuation is impossible, here's a suggestion. Write ONE LINE with ONE fact, then skip a line before typing the next fact. PUT IT IN CHRONOLOGICAL Order.
Has MIKE MOORE been apprised of this thread's existence?
If we keep personalities out and facts in, the thread will be more clear.
