It was their raffle, they received the $ directly from the participants, they are legally responsible for making sure that the advertised prize is awarded.
David, I am sure Ty has done good deeds for people. But the real measure of a man, as has been said many times here, is how he behaves when there is a challenge or an issue, not how he behaves when everything is going right.
Had you read the thread, without viewing it through a filter of needing to see him in the best possible light, I think there's an easy case to be made for the idea that Ty Park absolutely behaved in a greedy manner in this situation. Be that as it may, do you have ANY idea just how irrelevant his charitable contributions are to this situation?
Had you bothered to even read the posts immediately before your most recent one, you'd see just what his "attempt" amounted to: a continued refusal on his part to answer some extremely relevant questions. He admits that he never bothered to specify just which tegu he intended to send. Had he taken the 30 seconds required to inform her, "I'm sending you a T+ albino, like I provided the other raffle winners," all of this "smearing" wouldn't never have happened. Every meaningful choice that led to this situation becoming what it has, was made by Ty Park.
If your understanding doesn't include acknowledgement of the fact that the OP's so-called refusal was simply in lieu of receiving vital information that Ty Park consistently refused to provide, then said understanding is glaringly flawed. If the simple act of a wronged person pursuing what they're owed - regardless of how you or anyone else choose to perceive those who may end up being named in their lawsuit - is enough for you decide they're no longer credible, I think that's saying more unflattering things about your own credibility. You seem to think that once you've put someone on a pedestal, they're beyond all reproach. Sadly, that's not how it works out here in the real world.
Much like the charitable contributions that so many seem unable to see past, what he has or hasn't done for others has zero relevance here. You choosing to focus on such meaningless trivialities suggests some interest in diverting attention from your own inability to righteously defend Ty's actions.
The only character traits that truly matter are those he put on display within this specific situation. Unless one is desperate to find some way to make him look less villainous, focusing on his past actions serves no useful purpose here. For whatever rationalization he chooses to hide behind at the moment, he's failed to provide the raffle winner with her prize. No amount of tax write-offs will do anything to change that. There's no gray area here. Even if your goal is to show that there's no negative pattern of behavior - which wouldn't be true, based on Lynn Peterson's claims - you're still accomplishing nothing worthwhile, since it doesn't negate what happened during this discrete event.
