Wow! I haven't posted here since last October because of all of the negativity, posturing and lying as well as having pretty much removed myself from all reptile related forums and Facebook groups because of such atrocious behavior from the likes of people such as Dan Krull. I've chosen to just keep my mouth shut and try to isolate myself in my own positive little world. But then I was informed about these slanderous allegations with only my name being brought up amidst deceitful implications which I am forced to come out of hiding and defend myself against. Interesting!

I could go on about how Dan hates me for being forced to expose him on the BOI (my evidence is on posts 173, 178, 179 and 189) about lying and stealing from people but I think the facts speak for themselves. That thread alone will show that Dan has an agenda and an axe to grind with me, so it doesn't surprise me that he's willing to commit libel about me here.

So Dan writes "My argument, which I foolishly made in the presence of people like Troy Rexroth who attacked and insulted me for even suggesting it, was that the only thing that truly defines a conda is its ability to produce supers.".

Hm, that's very interesting because I don't recall this conversation at all. If Dan actually has proof, I would love to see it, otherwise I'm just going to call it for what I believe it to be, an outright lie.

Of course Dan's whole rant here is to imply (while desperately trying to smear my name) is that I've started this whole "rumor" about "white walls" being the one and only true marker for Anacondas and that I have no scientific mind at all. Well, that's interesting considering I've posted here back in 2013 saying this:

RE: On determining Anacondas from Normals - June 25 2013
"But the markers, well, (the only real known) marker (now), is starting to evolve as time goes on and Anacondas are being outcrossed more and more. Maybe some day the "white wall" will no longer be considered a marker either. It will be interesting."

Hm, based on what I actually wrote, it would seem that I'm not adhering to the "white wall" being a definitive marker now am I? I even wrote that it's within the realm of possibility that what is considered a marker now might not be in the future. This post alone, from 2013, seems to contradict everything Dan has implied about what I've said and been saying for years. Of course Dan isn't interested in facts or truth about anything I've ever said. I mean, why would I write that on a public forum only to contradict myself years later to just Dan? That doesn't make any sense to me! If anything, I've always been consistent with saying that "white walls" are a good indicator of an Anaconda, but even that, like so many other so-called markers can be proven false. He just loves to bury himself deeper in lies and deceipt.

It's also interesting that Dan seems to imply that I pose no thought into what I write, that I just assume too much without any scientific thought involved, but yet I think posts such as this I made back in July 4 2013 On Anaconda probabilities... seem to show otherwise.

"So what if you breed this pair over and over and consistently get all Anacondas. All that might prove is that the genes from the known Anaconda seem to be virile/dominant enough to keep producing all Anacondas, it doesn't validate the female as an Anaconda because of this outcome. You could also breed this pair and ultimately produce all Normals, it doesn't invalidate the fact that the male is an Anaconda either. The producing of all Anaconda clutches, as improbable as it is, especially on a consistent basis, is still acceptable. It is also conceivable, though also improbable, that you can breed 2 Anacondas consistently and never produce a Superconda or actually produce an entire clutch of Supercondas.

Regardless. None of the current or future results will prove anything about the female being anything but Normal unless she actually produces a Superconda from this type of pairing, her to an Anaconda. Only then would we would have to accept that she would be in fact a low expression Anaconda based on the fact that she could produce a Superconda. Everything else produced from this pairing, Anacondas and/or Normals, is inconclusive regardless of how improbable or interesting the outcomes are or what we think they should be.

The only other test, other than her producing a Superconda from an Anaconda pairing, would be to breed her to any known quantity Normal and see if she produces any Anacondas. If she does, then she would have to be considered an Anaconda. If no Anacondas are produced, then the female is obviously just a normal and nothing more.

And for the record. The only time you can expect to produce an entire clutch of Anacondas is from pairing a Superconda to a Normal which is the only time that probabilities won't factor in as it's a pure given outcome based on the fact that Anacondas are the het form of Supercondas, Superconda x Normal (AA x aa = Aa). Anything else, Superconda x Anaconda (AA x Aa = AA and Aa), Anaconda x Anaconda (Aa x Aa = AA, Aa and aa) and Anaconda x Normal (Aa x aa = Aa and aa), can and will yield various results as there are more than one phenotype that can be produced from the parental gene types."

Again, one can ascertain that the only "certainties" I make are based on solid genetic inheritence, nothing more, nothing less. But Dan will have you believe that I think, believe and say otherwise.

Again, Dan is a liar with an axe to grind, so he'll stop at nothing to slander me! It's unreal to me that he would go to such lengths to make this silly stupid post only to have the actual facts of what I have said contradict his lies. Why couldn't he have just written a nice concise post about his experiences instead of this arrogant, self-promoting, hate-filled and slanderous post? It says a lot about who Dan Krull actually is!

And for the record, anybody else who "corroborates" Dan's lies (such as Jonny Black who used to be my friend until we had certain disagreements) about what he claims I've said versus what I've actually said are obviously choosing sides to further my character assassination for their own twisted agendas. But whatever, those who have known me all of these years and adhere to what I've actually said throughout the years know the real truth and those are the only people who matter to me, not these con-men and liars with agendas. I'm not saying I'm perfect nor popular amongst my peers, but I've always been honest and a straight shooter in regards to my own well researched knowledge and opinions. To them however, facts and honesty be damned; it's all about popularity and control in order to further sales and make money off of those who don't know what these con-men are really about.

C'est la vie!
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]