Hoss...
I interpreted Lerer's post in two parts.
A: He was trying to use Bowles' refusal to talk to him, as well as his subsequently hanging up on Lerer, as further fuel to add to the fire. Basically, using it as a means to further villify Bowels.
B: That, by refusing to talk to Lerer, Bowels forced Lerer's hand.
A: Bowles needs no further villification at this point. I think his actions have pretty much spoken for themselves, the damage is done and Matt mentioning that Bowles won't talk to him wil no further (or lesser) bolster my opinion of Mr Bowles and the way he has conducted business and treated one of god's most beautiful creatures.
B: "Lerer's" hand was forced the second he opened the box man...hanging up at this stage of the game was not a catalyst by any means. Let's be realistic...as soon as it was quite evident that Tim had no intention of making things right, the hand of Lerer was forced to take action. Wonder which hand acted first?
Differences in circumstances aside, what Bowels did to Lerer was exactly what Lerer did to me. I was merely pointing out that "what is good for the goose...". What transpired between Bowels and Lerer speaks for itself. However, Bowels' refusal to speak to Lerer should not be used to further Lerers' case against Bowels. Especially not when this transaction is being tried before a jury of both parties' peers. After all, is that not a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black? It's okay for one to do to another? But not for someone else to do the same to the person that originally did it to another? Speaking solely about the phone calls, of course. Not the business transaction.
Sorry, I still think it's apples to oranges. Had Matt conducted some sort of transaction with you in which you were greatly dissatisfied and then refused to talk to you, then I'd say you had a similar experience. Because Matt didn't want to talk to you about some heresay and namecalling on the internet has no similarities to the case which we are discussing in this thread. As far as Bowles' refusal to speak to Matt not being used to further his case not being relevant, you are flat out WRONG. We all have moral obligations when engaging in the commercial trade of live animals to assure buyers that they are getting the best possible animal for their money and we are also obilgated to assure that the animal's welfare comes first and foremost. In this case, Bowles dropped the ball big time and the fact that he refuses to discuss the issue at hand once again speaks volumes and is therfore quite relevant. This is not a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black and your personal tiff with Matt has no similarities to him getting BLATANTLY screwed out of over $3,ooo at this point...sorry, I don't agree with your point of view here Hoss. This whoel thread is about the business transaction, not personal feelings. It became personal later on, especially after seeing the pics of that poor animal.
And exactly what bearing does my not spending any money with Lerer have on this in the first place? I'm at a loss on that one. Am I to believe that not having spent any money with him somehow invalidates or nullifies my opinion? Does that not also invalidate the majority of opinions within this thread that have been in favor of Matt? Opinions that have seemed to have been given a great deal of consideration and merit
Your opinion has never been nullified or invalidated at any point here sir...just simply not agreed upon. The fact that you have not spent money with Matt has everything to do with the fact that this entire thread is about a (Large) business transaction gone HORRIBLY wrong with (criminal) negligence on behalf of the seller. In my eyes, it also has to do wtih some animal abuse as well, but, that's my opinion. This is not a thread about who hangs up on who.
I certainly hope that was not the gist of your post. As that would be a glaringly blatant double-standard from such a respected and esteemed member of the reptile community.
Double standard, not really. Biased, possibly. I'm biased against anyone who screws someone else over by abusing the benefit of trust and friendship and more importantly I'm biased against any scumbag who mistreats and blatantly disregards the welfare of what happens to be my favorite snake in the whole wide world. Please do not misconstrue my friendship with Matt as grounds for double standardizing..it's simply not the case. Had Matt done this to someone (and not making it right) I'd call him a scumbag too.
I am sorry that your opinions do not coincide with mine on this matter John, there is obviously alot of personal animosity between you and Matt and it's not something that I want to be a part of. However, I am always open to an intellegent discussion so if you'd liek to discuss this matter further please feel free to email me (
[email protected]) and I will gladly discuss it with you since this post is WELL beyond the scope of this thread.
Take care man, hope I'm still esteemed in your eyes.
