Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Stephanie is a very dedicated Conservationist and has contributed much of her time and experience to betterment of the Box Turtle Forum on KS. Yet, here on the Herp Law Center & Forum, we are at odds, and I think this is unfortunate.

Obviously, we do have some common ground and some differences. While I don't agree with everything Stephanie says, I do agree with a few things, and I especially admire Stephanie's devotion to Box Turtles and to Conservation. I hope we can find some way to bridge the differences between us because we should not be enemies.

Am I right or am I wrong?

You are right we should find common ground but I haven't actually been able to figure out what exactly she is against unless it is all commercialization of herps. That is such a broad topic that one can certainly find examples of some harm being done but at the same time that shouldn't negate all the good that has been done. Not to mention some commercialization that doesn't have any significant effect either way, yet still brings happiness to many.

I'm for it and in fact have tried several times to do just that but I can't understand her positon or in fact if she has one other than playing the "devil's advocate"...I have clearly answered, WITH PROOF", several of her direct questions and she answers with another negative question....
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

I agree with Tom. She ignores the true and goes off on her own rants or whatever continually stirring the pot here. How about just go away and play with a Box turtle?

MC

You are wrong. She is only intrested in conflict. The Vishions of the annointed. To bother, irritate, or make angry by repeated action, noise, attacts, ect. Strate out of Rules for raticals,the liberal bible, to use when there is an absence of intelect. VM

"Here's a quick fact: you guys don't exactly qualify the word "commercialization" when you use the term.
If you want to be understood, be accurate, thorough and articulate."

Has Steph proved by her standards the legitimacy of all her good works in the field of Box Turtle Conservation? I'm not so sure.

She is nothing but a self aggrandizing self appointed anonymous broker of spin and discord.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I certainly see your point here, John, but if you were to look at Stephanie's posts on the Box Turtle Forum you would probably have a different view, no?

Here's a link to some of Stephanie's conservation work:

Third Box Turtle Conservation Workshop

"Husbandry Techniques For Captive Box Turtles: Maximizing Scientific Value of Natural History Observations
Stephanie N. Foertmeyer and Joseph C. Mitchell"

I have seen Stephs posts on the box turtle forum, but not that one. For some unknown reason she maintains an anonymous persona here. Getting any evidence to substantiate her stake in all this is like pulling teeth.
The disdain and contempt for us and our position comes through loud and clear. It's as if she looks down on us as inferior beings with nothing worthwhile to say. It's just a game with her.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I don't think that I posted that to the Box turtle forum, actually.

Let the Google searches begin! LOL

Awww c'mon, John knows EVERYTHING there is to know about me already: my motives, my methods, the innermost workings of my heart and mind....why he even knows what I'm going to do before I do it.

LOL

How about sharing that paper? I'd like to read it.
Why you gotta act so cute and clever all the time?
Because that's what it's really all about with you isn't it.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

You tell me.

And it wasn't a paper: if you'd read the link you'd have seen that it was a poster presentation. Not exactly something that I can pass around.

There is always common ground.

Frankly, I came here in an effort to gain a better understanding of how herp laws affect different aspect of the hobby, business, conservation efforts, etc. I understand that enactment of laws invariably have unintended consequences, but since I am not involved in the pet trade, I really haven't an understanding of the ins and outs of certain aspect of the issue.

In short, I came here to be persuaded.

It became abundantly evident from the outset that I was immediately judged to be "the enemy" on the strength of my having asked questions.

Apparently, questioning the prevailing common wisdom here is simply Not Done. Many were willing to slap the AR label on me almost immediately. Funny how some behind such leaps to judgment are now accusing *me* of being judgmental....

Some of the comments I've posted have been in the spirit of playing the Devil's advocate. Many here are willing to pick apart arguments that they disagree with, but don't hold themselves to the same level of accountability. This is a great way to have oneself NOT be taken seriously. In short, it's very unprofessional.

Really, this is a a very touchy, defensive, sensitive crowd: yes-men are preferred, actual discussion is discouraged and alternate perspectives are derided.

For the record, many of you opened up on me, guns blazing, from the very beginning. So, look to yourselves when asking why I have found it necessary to defend myself: while I've been resistant to stooping to the same level, sometimes it's the only way to get a message across.

If you really want to win people like me (who are somewhat on the fence)over, you should try a little civilized discourse. Otherwise you simply drive away potential allies.

At this point I have determined to NOT join USARK as I feel that they do not represent my interests.

"There is always common ground."

Good.

"Frankly, I came here in an effort to gain a better understanding of how herp laws affect different aspect of the hobby, business, conservation efforts, etc. I understand that enactment of laws invariably have unintended consequences, but since I am not involved in the pet trade, I really haven't an understanding of the ins and outs of certain aspect of the issue.

In short, I came here to be persuaded."

Well, why didn't you say so? This appears to be your first post here:

"Have any FL reptile enthusiasts, breeders associations or dealer groups offered to assist with feral reptile removal and eradication efforts?

Banding together to make a good faith effort to rectify the problem, and then generally doing a better job of policing our selves would go a long way toward being taken seriously by the public at large."

"It became abundantly evident from the outset that I was immediately judged to be "the enemy" on the strength of my having asked questions."

I believe it was your answers and our answers that got things heated up. I can only speak for myself, but this can all be "water under the bridge" as far as I'm concerned.

"Apparently, questioning the prevailing common wisdom here is simply Not Done. Many were willing to slap the AR label on me almost immediately. Funny how some behind such leaps to judgment are now accusing *me* of being judgmental...."

Yep.

"Some of the comments I've posted have been in the spirit of playing the Devil's advocate."

Yep.

"Many here are willing to pick apart arguments that they disagree with, but don't hold themselves to the same level of accountability. This is a great way to have oneself NOT be taken seriously. In short, it's very unprofessional."

You lost me there.

"Really, this is a a very touchy, defensive, sensitive crowd:"

Yep.

"yes-men are preferred, actual discussion is discouraged and alternate perspectives are derided."

I wouldn't agree with this, but you're entitled to your opinion.

"For the record, many of you opened up on me, guns blazing, from the very beginning. So, look to yourselves when asking why I have found it necessary to defend myself: while I've been resistant to stooping to the same level, sometimes it's the only way to get a message across."

I remember a few posts of yours where this was not the case, but no point in dragging them up.

"If you really want to win people like me (who are somewhat on the fence)over, you should try a little civilized discourse. Otherwise you simply drive away potential allies."

Good point.

"At this point I have determined to NOT join USARK as I feel that they do not represent my interests."

OK. Who, in your opinion, does represent your interests?

I personally think that you NOT only would not benefit us but would actually be harmful. Your mind was made up at the time of your first post. Paying the "devil's advocate" is good and at first that's what I thought your were doing. It became abundantly clear that any truth you refused to acknowledge as factual. Much of the Dr Dodd business was refutable likely even by him but you quoted a 1980's post as applicable today even though it fly's in the face of the truth. I gave you the name of Dr Perron Ross and Dr Wayne King and you chose to ignore them and chatice me or else you researched it and were well aware that both would agree with me 100% and you again chose to ignore the facts because you would have to admit your failure. I consider people like you to be toxic and certainly have NO business in any organization I'd be a member of. My only thought is why it took you so long to say the truth outright. I don't like you or anything you stand for. You are an inexperienced wannabe loud mouth that I'm ashamed to have wasted so much time on. If you honestly didn't know what USARK stands for it's a great pity and I'm sorry for being so hard on you. If that's another untruth shame on you. In any event everything you stand for I detest. You think you are smart but you lack a scrap of common sense. You are altruistic, obtrusive, abrasive and have a paucity of common sense...YOU WILL NOT BE MISSED...
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

"At this point I have determined to NOT join USARK as I feel that they do not represent my interests."

This is NOT the USARK forum or the USARK recruiting forum.

What's your point? See how far off the mark you are. Question asked and answered. You contrive your own outcomes at the offset. Most people would call that being manipulative.

If we don't meet your expectations, then I'd expect a sane and normal person to cease participation and go somewhere a bit more satisfying. But, I'll bet you won't. That's really not why you're here. We all know that.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Given that I've been asked more than once whether or not I'd join USARK, I have provided an answer.

If you guys want people to take your hobby/profession seriously (based on frequent complaints made here about being misunderstood): you might want to try to be more civilized and professional about how you discus and conduct said business. This is supposed to be a discussion forum and yet there are a handful of you who seem bent on dominating the forum, stifling discussion and turning this into the cyber-equivalent of a mob with torches and pitchforks, bashing anyone who doesn't fall in to lock-step with the more vocalized opinions.

When there is nothing but the same disgruntled anti-government, anti-AR (to whom you cede far too much power, IMO), anti-just-about-everything-but-yourself, not only do you miss the opportunity to win over allies, you also pass up the opportunity to learn how to counteract negative stereotypes, improve your own tactics and generally gain something from any exchange of ideas. When you surround yourselves with like minded individuals, it's easy to be blindsided.

I don't think that I or anyone else should have to come here and state their purpose up front: we are simply supposed to be talking about herp law, after all.

So, keep trying to chase people, like me or simply not just like yourselves, away from this forum, and you will find yourselves where exactly where you seem to enjoy being, isolated in your own little bubble, lashing out at everyone for misunderstanding you and your passion.

I think it's arrogant that you are giving us a lesson on how to win people over.

I'm not trying to give anyone a lesson, nor am I trying to win over anyone here myself. It's not arrogance so much as indifference.

No you're truly arrogant and not even aware of your true positition and abilities in the subject matter. Yet you try to show your actually well rounded with lots of experience. You are what we [meaning experienced herpers which this forum is filled with] call a newbie. Why do you then attempt to discredit andor manipulate every post to a preconceived answer that you approve of in advance as being truthful even if it is blatantly false? It is because you are ARROGANT to the point of being willfuly ignorant...I know READING COMPREHENSION...
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

"You contrive your own outcomes at the offset. Most people would call that being manipulative."

That is an accurate description, IMO. To me the questions she asked did not seem like she was seeking answers. To me they seemed like see was trying to get an particular answer that she had already chosen as the "correct" one. When she did not get the answer she wanted she mocked us by selectively quoting "experts", as if to say, 'this is what the smart people say about it and you are all stupid'. Hers were some of the most demeaning posts that I have read on this forum. Now she is trying to make it seems like she made an honest effort to undertand "our side". Manipulative indeed.

Wow Steph is that really the way you see things????
I looked back at your first few posts on here and I can totaly see why people have the oppionion of you they do. YOU HAVE NO TACT!!! the fist few posts were just small talk but then someone was questiong the reasoning behind some of the reptiles being baned that have never even entered che country and you reply:
"The answers are in the link. Read thoroughly" and then:
"No, I won't quote it. I'm not here to do anyone's reading for them.
If you read the text thoroughly you might find that you won't have to ask so many questions." and then:
"Wow. What are you talking about?
Again, the answers to your questions are in the text to which you provided a link. I don't really feel a need to add to the 'backup' that you've already provided.
Thanks."
Not a very good first impression. Most people would have said they want to be proactice and include others that could be a problem.

And then you go into a very heated post and start disagree with everything people say and they are nice for a while and after 5 or 6 posts of you defending the "oposition" people start to question your motives because you just seem to be here to argue the other side with not a shred of common ground. You really seem to come in here just to disagree with anything anyone has to say and then ignore reason and make "smart a$$" comments whenever possible.
In forums you have many personalitys and if you jump in and start bumping heads and wise crack then you are going to get nowhere. I really don't believe your intentions were as altrueistic as you claim. You were never on the fence and you cannot be won over by anyone in a forum maby in person where you would probobly not be such a know it all a$$.
Ever heard anything about making a good first impression.
This ia all I wan't to waist my time saying because your haed is already full.
Best Wishes,
Rob

If you shed the defensive lenses attitude for a minute and read my posts objectively, without presuming any intent, you might just might realize that I am typically merely being direct.

You guys should try sitting in on a discussion with a bunch of scientists questioning each other on their work. LOL You wouldn't last 2 minutes under the kind of scrutiny under which one is required to defend one's work.

I have been at those discussions you describe with scientist. They are NOT like you. In fact I just came back last month from Loma Linda Univ. doing just that. You have NO IDEA of even what you are taking about on this. I stood very well to scrutiny as did every one else. Of course our objectivity was a common goal unlike yours...
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

I never said they were like me.

There's that reading comprehension again. My rhetoric implied they [the scientist] had no problem understanding me defending my position unlike you who does NOT. Do you now understand what I said and meant?
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

I see. Here's something for you to consider: I DO understand your defense. I think that it is inadequate.

I'm NOT defending anything. There's that reading comprehension problem again rearing it's ugly head. Without question you really do have this problem don't you?
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

Sure you are : you've been defending your position all along.

Allow me to quote your latest:

"My rhetoric implied they [the scientist] had no problem understanding me defending my position unlike you who does NOT. Do you now understand what I said and meant?"

Read very slowly if necessary. Pay special attention to the words "defending my position".

I see that your reading comprehension is on about a third grade level. I mean you suggested you didn't know what USARK meant or who they represented in an ealier post below these....
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

a poster who is never wrong, has no respect for anyone else's viewpoint (unless it is the same as their's), and simply redicules all other opinions as invalid. That poster simply feeds off the negative attention that is garnered by the existance of the threads and the responses. Just ignore the posts, do not respond, and it will all be resolved when the ego isn't being fed.

I know it's hard, but give it a try. There are far more important things to do than banter about the boards with this person. Blowing my nose comes to mind as one of those things.