Reptile & Amphibian Forums

np

Here's a pic, just click the link
Link

np

Here is a Fire Ball with a normal for comparison.

Is it just me or does it look like a ghost? Mark Petros

I think that they look very much like ghosts. That is one of the things that makes this project so good. You have a ghost that is co-dominant for all of your combo projects and in the end you have a leucistic. What's better than that?

np

How about a belly pic?

Thanks.

These would make awesome combos with other morphs.......despite the fact they are het lucys!

Sorry Mike........I couldn't help myself

Tom

.

OK, let's keep this simple. A fire ball bred to a normal gives normals and fire balls. A fire ball bred to another fire ball gives fire balls, normals and leucistics. Both breedings have been done more than once with the same results. Who says the trait is not co-dominant and why? Please show me the courtesy of posting under your own name.
bobclark.com

said a couple days ago he believes the traits from his snakes are recessive.This would be directly dispelling the co dom claims.
Also,the fireball breedings and there one in four claim have no photo documentation.I would think the proud breeder would have this pasted all over reptile magazine and kingsnake.
There is also no mention of line breeding the black eye.
So the skepticism probably is a direct result of the owner of the black eye disagreeing with what are unproven claims.
Don't know Mike and Bob, but the results aren't around to be seen.
Show me the money is the plee, I think the public is saying show me the proof.Doubtfully smiling,
Sizzel

The products of the breedings cannot be disputed. What is in question here is the interpretation of the data. I respectfully disagree with the breeder. The recessive theory cannot be supported. There can only be one explanation for the results. The trait is co-dominant. I think these results are not problematic to someone with the background to understand and the resources to buy these animals.
bobclark.com

It does seem (based upon what you've given) that co-dominant is (easily) the best conclusion.

What is the argument used by the breeder to support his belief that the condition is recessive?

Mark Goodson

The best interpretation will lie in proof not money and wishes.
Pictures of fireball to fireball and fireball to normal producing black eyed white snakes(Lucy is actually in question by eye color)and fireballs would be the proof.
For now to say unproven gene not yet line bred is the general norm.
The very experienced breeders generally follow through the experiments to find the absolute conclusion through line breeding.
Generally an unknown result is not announced without basis.
It is generally something that when three parties are involved in a project and the project owner disagrees with the North American marketers that skepticism will ride on the side of proven science.
Show the pictures of fireball offspring or call the fireball an unproven animal,rather than a co dom het. Simple.
Sizzel

Come on now, pay attention. All the breedings have been done now. What's left to prove?

It is generally something that when three parties are involved in a project and the project owner disagrees with the North American marketers that skepticism will ride on the side of proven science

Generally. huh??

Simple even still.
Smiles for all,
Sizzel

You've seen the white one and a fire ball, what picture could you possibly want to see now?

As the breeder of the lucy and Fireballs in question, I HAVE NOT STATED THAT BOB CLARK IS WRONG in claiming that the Fireball is co-dominant. What I am saying is I AM NOT SURE until I have proven the gene by more breeding. To answer Randy's question; the belly colour is white. Eric Davies

Thanks for the info!

Any odd congregation of black along the edges of these white bellies? If you happen to have a pic I would love to see it.

Thanks again.

whitesnake and the offspring being called fireball.
I haven't seen anything beyond that. I can't recall Davies ever mentioning that his whitesnake( your windfall) is the product of one or two fireballs. If your theory is correct it would have had to come from a fireball breeding.
What more do I want to see you ask, well I havent seen a super fireball, a lesser fireball, or a blackeyed whitesnake offspring come from either the Davies White snake or your better termed windfall balls.Thats what I would like to see, because to say these are het for co-dom is just an embellishment of what the offspring will be ( more than likely recessive).
As a consumer that is horsecrap and you know it.And coming from a breeder respected in the industry it tends to put yet another black eye on the hobby/profession
Call them unproven or unknown.
Out of smiles.
Sizzel

You are LOONEY!

That's enough for me. Over and out!

You put w-a-y more effort into this thread than many of the big breeders would. The kitchen was hot...the pot was boiling...you came out to play.

I really respect the fact that at no time did you stoop to the "I know more because I'm Bob" or the "You're not giving me the respect that I deserve" stance that some forum contributors would apparently have used if they were in your position.

You presented your case...
LooneyLady presented hers...
You disagree...
You seem to believe that you and LooneyLady will not see eye-to-eye on this issue...
You're probably right...

My personal opinion is that little would probably be served by continuing the discussions other than rehashing what has already been said.

On the off-chance that LooneyLady has now swayed you to her viewpoint, I'd be happy to take those Fire Balls off your hands...

Mr. Clark did a wonderful of presenting himself like a true professional.

...and I really appreciate the fact that Bob managed to avoid making any references to the breeding of Rottweilers.

Yellow paint is fast!

I also forgot drums...

And a whole bunch of rules...

LOL...

Ahh, psuedo-witty banter, how I love thee.

To accuse one of the top ball python breeders in the world (Bob Clark) of not knowing what he's talking about when it comes to ball python breeding.

If it were Peter Kahl or one of the Sutherlands or Eric Davies or Ralph Davis or someone with that kind of credibility who was accusing Clark of ignorance or premature declarations, I'd be inclined to listen, but how many ball pythons have you successfully bred, LooneyLady/Sizzel? How many morphs have you imported from Africa and proven out the genetics on? How many people feel secure that your name indicates quality animals and quality customer service?

Personally, I'm inclined to believe Bob Clark, but I am taking note of your big brass ones.

Maybe "ALL" don't agree

"RDR" journal Feb. 20

But one would have to think that at this stage of the game, he's not going to screw people over for one season of selling co-dom fakes, only to be ostracized the following season! LOL! I mean, why sacrifice HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars in FUTURE sales to make money of co-dom fakes THIS year? Especially if your name is Bob Clark, one of the biggest in the Python industry for the last decade. That doesn't male sense.

I would be inclined to believe Mr. Clark. Co-dom, with the "het" being a Fire Ball, and the "super" being a Lucy. I don't think its that hard to grasp.
-----

If some of the breeders mentioned had not proven an animal they would not make the claims.
To answer your question, as a consumer of ball pythons this @#$%'s me off. If you are a snake purchaser and approve of this, you will deserve the dealings you get.
Look at the herp community, some people spend more than they can afford on animals and do not protect their investments.
Some top breeders make alleged claims about animals and like lemmings people line up at the cliff.
Left snakeless or paying for empty promises.
It doesn't take brass ones to speak the truth. It shouldn't recieve a brass band to play for unproven theories.
Smileless
Sizzel

LMAO...

I would have phrased it a little differently, but I certainly agree with most of what you say...

Don't lose the smiles just yet...I have a feeling that you've only just begun...

>>LMAO...
>>
>>I would have phrased it a little differently, but I certainly agree with most of what you say...
>>
>>Don't lose the smiles just yet...I have a feeling that you've only just begun...
>>
>>

OPRAH?????
-----
RicK @ BbI

Ball Boutique,Inc.
The home of the singing snakes!

I was thinking it was Ricky Lake...but you might be right...

Pass the bonbons...

LOL...

bonbons bad
sip sip good.
I still want a lucy.
-----
RicK @ BbI

Ball Boutique,Inc.
The home of the singing snakes!

Perhaps we can find some liqueur-laced bonbons...???

>>If some of the breeders mentioned had not proven an animal they would not make the claims.

OK, but instead of questioning him as to why he believes what he does about the genetics of the leucy or respectfully disagreeing with him, you were rude and tried to cover it up by stating that you were smiling. Crocodiles smile a lot, too.

>>To answer your question, as a consumer of ball pythons this @#$%'s me off. If you are a snake purchaser and approve of this, you will deserve the dealings you get.

First, I'm not in a position to buy a leucy or fireball. Second, even if I were, I'd want more information than we have so far before I made my purchase unless I could afford to throw away that kind of money, in which case I'd snap one up in a heartbeat regardless of genetics. You don't know me and so don't know this about me, but I am someone who researches my options thoroughly before I spend more than $50 or so on anything. You are ticked off, but I am not because I wouldn't fall for a claim from any one single breeder and if I found one who was consistently disproven or had the weight of the evidence against him, I would not be likely to buy anything from him at all.

>>Look at the herp community, some people spend more than they can afford on animals and do not protect their investments.

Just like in any other hobbyist community, from dogs to motorcycles or real estate to lunchboxes. That is entirely beside the point.

>>Some top breeders make alleged claims about animals and like lemmings people line up at the cliff.
>>Left snakeless or paying for empty promises.

Caveat emptor.

>>It doesn't take brass ones to speak the truth. It shouldn't recieve a brass band to play for unproven theories.
>>Smileless
>>Sizzel

No, it shouldn't take brass ones to speak the truth, but that is not what you were doing here. You were publicly being very disrespectful to a leading breeder in your chosen hobby. I don't care whether you indicate that you are smiling at the end of your posts or not as it's insincere and irrelevant.

The point of the brass ones wasn't that you disagreed, it was the way in which you did it, implying that Bob Clark shouldn't have any credibility. Who next? Peter Kahl? Collette Sutherland? And why should you have more credibility than he? If you have a valid reason, I am more than willing to hear/read it.

Listening ...

"Crocodiles smile a lot, too."
You have got to be kidding me...
How long until you use the "Your mother wears combat boots" attack???

"You were publicly being very disrespectful to a leading breeder in your chosen hobby."
I agree with some of the things LooneyLady says and I disagree with others.
I agree with some of the things Bob Clark says and I disagree with others.
I disagree that either of them have been overly disrespectful or rude to the other. They have both expressed their opinions in a forthright and compelling manner. I would have probably expressed myself a little differently...as would most folks on this forum. You may have your "acceptable level of respect for a leading breeder", but guess what...LooneyLady is similarly allowed to have hers. She has certainly not stepped over my "acceptable level of respect for a leading breeder".

By the way, in case you hadn't noticed...Bob Clark is all grown up now and he is doing a pretty fair job of presenting his viewpoint...without stooping to question the level of respect afforded to him by LooneyLady.
For that, I commend him highly.

"Who next? Peter Kahl? Collette Sutherland?"
If she disagrees with them, why not?
Are they beyond reproach?

"And why should you have more credibility than he? "
Very true.
By the same argument, why should Bob have more credibility than LooneyLady?
Seems to be that both should be given a chance to make/break their case.

"If you have a valid reason, I am more than willing to hear/read it.
Listening..."
But are you willing to be open-minded about it...???
Ever hear of a kangaroo court...???
LMAO...

"And why should you have more credibility than he? "
Very true.
By the same argument, why should Bob have more credibility than LooneyLady?
Seems to be that both should be given a chance to make/break their case.

I think by the very fact that Bob actually uses his NAME as his handle commands an inkling more respect than "Loonie Ladee". Don't you?

Interesting side note: A Loonie is a buck in Canada!

You've hit on one of my pet peeves...

Personally, I don't care what handle a forum poster contributes under. I would much prefer to have an informative and entertaining forum frequented by people with goofy handles than a less-informative and less-entertaining forum frequented by people with "real names".

It's interesting, really...
How do I know that your real name is "Jeff Favelle"...???
How do you know that my real name is "Renaissance"...???
Oh, wait a minute...it isn't...
Does that mean that I deserve an inkling less respect than you do?
I certainly hope not...

Perhaps "respect" is a bad choice of words. But look at it this way: Bob Clark has an INFINITE amount more at stake here than Looonie Lady, no? SO she could spout off all she wants and say whatever pleases here, basically without consequence. You can't argue with that, can you?

Now, do you think Bob Clark is in the same position? I certainly don't. Therefore, do you see it as entirely possible that whatever he says would command at least somewhat more credibility than what Loonie Lady is posting? I do. For sure. You don't have to agree. That's why living in North America is so great. We are allowed to have our own opinions (even thougb on the Ball Forum, it doesn't seem that way).

"That's why living in North America is so great. We are allowed to have our own opinions (even thougb on the Ball Forum, it doesn't seem that way)"

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie.

I would agree that it is likely in this particular instance that Bob has more at stake than LooneyLady does. Unfortunately, from a credibility perspective, sometimes the person with the most at stake is considered the most likely to be the transgressor, since they have the most to lose.
Please note: By no means am I implying that since Bob has the most at stake then he is the most likely to be the transgressor in this issue. What I am saying is that to use "who has the most at stake" as an argument in support of a person's credibility is a somewhat unreasonable perspective.
Try using that logic in a courtroom...
"Your honor...I know my client took out a $12 million life-insurance policy on the deceased the day before she tripped and fell down the stairs...but that proves he must be telling the truth since he has so much at stake...".
LOL...

You are right that - to a certain extent - LooneyLady can "spout off"; not without consequences, however. I did not see it, but from what I am told, LooneyLady got involved in a somewhat rambunctious thread that was fairly swiftly sliced-and-diced by the moderators. Additionally, her credibility when participating in any thread will more than likely be judged just as much on her past performances as upon her performance in that particular thread.

"That's why living in North America is so great. We are allowed to have our own opinions (even thougb on the Ball Forum, it doesn't seem that way)."
I'm glad you see it that way...I definitely agree with you on that...

I totally see it from your angle as well. But it still doesn't change the fact that we don't have Lucies! Ha ha! Maybe I'll get my girlfriend to change her name to Lucy so that I can at least pretend...

.

>>>>"Crocodiles smile a lot, too."
>>You have got to be kidding me...
>>How long until you use the "Your mother wears combat boots" attack???

It's not about attack. It's about whether she is smiling or not being entirely irrelevant.

>>>>"You were publicly being very disrespectful to a leading breeder in your chosen hobby."
>>I agree with some of the things LooneyLady says and I disagree with others.
>>I agree with some of the things Bob Clark says and I disagree with others.
>>I disagree that either of them have been overly disrespectful or rude to the other. They have both expressed their opinions in a forthright and compelling manner. I would have probably expressed myself a little differently...as would most folks on this forum. You may have your "acceptable level of respect for a leading breeder", but guess what...LooneyLady is similarly allowed to have hers. She has certainly not stepped over my "acceptable level of respect for a leading breeder".
>>

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine. I saw several rude posts from her in response to or about him.

>>By the way, in case you hadn't noticed...Bob Clark is all grown up now and he is doing a pretty fair job of presenting his viewpoint...without stooping to question the level of respect afforded to him by LooneyLady.
>>For that, I commend him highly.
>>

Agreed. He has certainly come across as a professional and, as I noted in another post, can defend himself just fine without me.

>>>>"Who next? Peter Kahl? Collette Sutherland?"
>>If she disagrees with them, why not?
>>Are they beyond reproach?

Of course they are not beyond reproach or disagreement. I assume if I tried long enough I would find something to disagree with each major breeder about. But if I did so, I would do it with at least a modicum of respect, which I tend to afford others until they have proven unworthy of it and which I am more than willing to give Bob Clark in the specific area o breeding ball pythons.

>>>>"And why should you have more credibility than he? "
>>Very true.
>>By the same argument, why should Bob have more credibility than LooneyLady?
>>Seems to be that both should be given a chance to make/break their case.
>>

Bob Clark starts out with more crebilitity on this particular topic because of his level of experience. That doesn't mean he is infallible. Looney presented no reasons why she should be given credibility and presented no coherent arguments disputing Clark's assertion.

>>"If you have a valid reason, I am more than willing to hear/read it.
>>Listening..."
>>But are you willing to be open-minded about it...???
>>Ever hear of a kangaroo court...???
>>LMAO...

Yes, I am, if there is evidence presented in a remotely coherent manner and the individual is capable of presenting it without stooping to straw man arguments, personal attacks, diversions, whining, and similar tactics and responses. Simply saying something is so is not going to convince me that it is regardless of who you are, but I am inclined to believe that Clark has some evidence to support his position. As Looney neither has nor is breeding any leucistics or suspected leucy hets, what credibility should I afford to her assertions in the absence of evidence?

The old "They know better because they've done it more and are more experienced than you" argument...

How long ago was it that the learned and respected professionals known as "doctors" knew that "bloodletting" was a magical cure for all kinds of maladies??? They obviously knew more about it since they'd done it more and were more experienced.

What about all those explorers in the past who just knew the World was flat??? Hey...who would argue with them...they were the experts...

I am not slamming Bob Clark or his experience. What I am saying is that just because someone has done something more often or they are more experienced, it does not automatically mean that they are correct. Bob may be correct. LooneyLady may be correct. To automatically leap to the "Bob knows more because he's done it more" argument is nothing less (in my opinion, of course ) than a cop-out. If you disagree with LooneyLady, debate her based on facts, science, logic or whatever...not based on what you perceive to be her experience, knowledge or net worth. If her experience or knowledge is lacking, that should be somewhat obvious as the discussion progresses...give it time...

I'm really glad you weren't around when Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin. After all, how often had he done that before??? Before the ready-and-waiting-to-jump-on-me set start to blather on about "Are you saying that LooneyLady is going to discover penicillin?"...no, of course I'm not.

As for Blake's post...
"I am not saying Bob Clark is a God but in the snake breeding community, he is real close."
You wonder why LooneyLady refers to "lemmings"???

Have I mentioned how much I hate "Forum Wars"???
I should have probably stayed out of this one...

>>The old "They know better because they've done it more and are more experienced than you" argument...

You, like LooneyLady, missed the point. I am not asserting that Clark is right, as you'll see if you read another reply I made a few minutes ago. On the other hand, LooneyLady hasn't given me any reason to believe her over Clark, who has managed to successfully become a top breeder, not without some reason.

>>How long ago was it that the learned and respected professionals known as "doctors" knew that "bloodletting" was a magical cure for all kinds of maladies??? They obviously knew more about it since they'd done it more and were more experienced.
>>

Not to upset your apple cart, but leeches are being used again in modern medicine. Read the journals. Turns out they do have some valid applications after all.

>>What about all those explorers in the past who just knew the World was flat??? Hey...who would argue with them...they were the experts...
>>

Waaaay off point. Straw man argument, in fact.

>>I am not slamming Bob Clark or his experience. What I am saying is that just because someone has done something more often or they are more experienced, it does not automatically mean that they are correct. Bob may be correct. LooneyLady may be correct. To automatically leap to the "Bob knows more because he's done it more" argument is nothing less (in my opinion, of course ) than a cop-out.

Ah, but I didn't. I didn't agree with either of them on the genetics because I don't have enough evidence to go on. It was the disrespect for Bob Clark that earned her the post regarding brass ones.

>>If you disagree with LooneyLady, debate her based on facts, science, logic or whatever...not based on what you perceive to be her experience, knowledge or net worth. If her experience or knowledge is lacking, that should be somewhat obvious as the discussion progresses...give it time...
>>

I'd like to see LL debate Clark based on facts, science, logic. We might all learn something useful regarding the leucy project from such a debate. That is not, however, what she appeared to have any interest in doing.

>>I'm really glad you weren't around when Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin. After all, how often had he done that before??? Before the ready-and-waiting-to-jump-on-me set start to blather on about "Are you saying that LooneyLady is going to discover penicillin?"...no, of course I'm not.
>>

Uh huh.

>>As for Blake's post...
>>"I am not saying Bob Clark is a God but in the snake breeding community, he is real close."
>>You wonder why LooneyLady refers to "lemmings"???

No, but I am not one of them or concerned that I will become one. Caveat emptor. If she is concerned about the bloodline of a particular snake or morph, let her wait for it to prove itself out. I certainly will be doing so.

>>Have I mentioned how much I hate "Forum Wars"???
>>I should have probably stayed out of this one...

I don't see any reason for this to become a war. I certainly didn't intend to start one. I was simply amazed at how outright rude LL was to Bob Clark, and in such a public space. He can defend himself without my help, I am sure, and the leucy's dominance or lack thereof will be evident to all who keep up with it in time.

"Not to upset your apple cart, but leeches are being used again in modern medicine. Read the journals. Turns out they do have some valid applications after all."

Who mentioned leeches???

Sure...leeches are a form of bloodletting, but what about the following (copied from a couple of references)...

Lancets.
The lancet was first used before 5th Century B.C. The vein was manually perforated by the practitioner. Many shallow cuts were sometimes made.

Spring-loaded lancets.
Spring-loaded lancets came into use during the early 18th Century. The device was cocked and a "trigger" fired the spring-driven blade into the vein.

Fleam.
The fleam was heavily used during the 18th and 19th centuries. Many varieties exist. Sometimes a wooden "fleam stick" was used to hit the back of the blade and drive it into the vein.

Scarificator.
The scarificator, a series of twelve blades, was also in vogue during the 18th Century. This device was cocked and the trigger released spring-driven rotary blades which caused many shallow cuts.

So...since leeches are still used, you maintain that bloodletting is practised today exactly as it was practised in the past???

Perhaps you are the one who needs to "read the journals"...

Get Up to date!
Lancets.
The lancet was first used before 5th Century B.C. The vein was manually perforated by the practitioner. Many shallow cuts were sometimes made.

Now used for blood sugars!
-----
RicK @ BbI

Ball Boutique,Inc.
The home of the singing snakes!

Ah, but you're only talking "drops" of blood...not "pints"...

Talking of "pints"...what about ale-laced bonbons...???

But that's not the point. It's still being used, to whatever degree.

*Whooooosh*

Hear that sound?

Another of my points went right over your head...

Again...

LOL...

Actually, I believe I got your point. You're arguing that they're points are invalid because blood letting isn't being used to same degree it was however many years ago.

You do see the counter point that using leaches and lancets, in any capacity, is still blood letting? The term "narcissist" comes to mind, though I can't imagine why.

"Egoism"...

Or "the other" one...

LOL...

>>So...since leeches are still used, you maintain that bloodletting is practised today exactly as it was practised in the past???
>>
>>Perhaps you are the one who needs to "read the journals"...
>>

Straw man argument again ...

Unlike your argument...???

LMAO...

>>Unlike your argument...???
>>
>>LMAO...
>>

Yes, because I wasn't debating the truth of the genetics of the leucistics -- I don't have enough information on that and I don't think most other people here do, either, if anyone. We don't know how many types of leucy there even are yet, much less dominance and required factors.

I was simply pointing out that LooneyLady had a lot of chutzpah to be that rude to that big a breeder in that public a place. Guess I was wrong, though, since she's posting above that she won't back up her accusations with her name. Any other topics, including the field of medicine, genetic theory, leucistic snakes, morphs in general, etc., etc., are just straw man arguments. The point is not the snakes or the genetics involved; it's the behavior of LooneyLady/Sizzel.

Does that mean you have bred the "FireBalls" together to produce Luecy's?

Eric has done this breeding twice and produced a leucistic and fire balls each time.

he feels the snake is recessive.He also broke off the marketing deal with you. Whats up with that?
They are unproven if the owner whose experience your quoting disagrees with your embellished outcome.
Sorry to your fan club, but this sounds like a used car salesman.
Or is that pre owned?
Smiles,
Sizzel

>>he feels the snake is recessive.He also broke off the marketing deal with you. Whats up with that?
>>They are unproven if the owner whose experience your quoting disagrees with your embellished outcome.
>>Sorry to your fan club, but this sounds like a used car salesman.
>>Or is that pre owned?
>>Smiles,
>>Sizzel

"he feels the snake is recessive"? Actually, what I have consistently seen from Eric is that he doesn't feel comfortable asserting what the morph's dominance is yet, which is not the same as saying he feels it's recessive.

Here he said
"As the breeder of the lucy and Fireballs in question, I HAVE NOT STATED THAT BOB CLARK IS WRONG in claiming that the Fireball is co-dominant. What I am saying is I AM NOT SURE until I have proven the gene by more breeding. To answer Randy's question; the belly colour is white. Eric Davies"
http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=370728,371511

Elsewhere he said
"As the breeder of the Black-eyed leucistic, I will not make any claim as to whether they are a co-dominant or simple recessive gene until I have the results of this year's breeding. The lucy male has been bred to his mother,a Fireball female and four normal females. Bob Clark may well be right in saying that it is co-dominant, but I need to prove the theory beyond doubt. Eric Davies."
http://ball-pythons.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=1421&start=15

You've made quite a jump in your assertion from the one to the other. I personally don't claim to know whether leucism is dominant, co-dominant, incompletely dominant, recessive, or some combination of those due to different forms/types of leucism and I don't think we can be 100% certain without very expensive genetic profiling or several more generations and cross-breeding. The point was that you, Sizzel/LooneyLady, were being very rude to one of the leading bp breeders in the world and I was very surprised to see not just someone doing that, but someone doing that so publicly. More power to you for standing up for your convictions, but I certainly think you could have gone about it quite a bit more respectfully than you did.

My $0.02.

this whole business is about money, do you think anyone of the breeders advertising all over KS would do so if they didn't plan on making a profit? Do you think Bob and Mike would be defending their beliefs on the Luecy and Fireball if they didn't care about marketing the snake? I know if I didn't plan on making money at some point I wouldn't come home to sweet smell of rat/mice every day just because I enjoy it. I would'nt spend hours and hours feeding, cycling, and pairing up ball pythons just for the simple joy of watching babies hatch out. If that were the case I wouldn't be spending $1000's of dollars on hets, I could spend a $100 dollar for whole shipment of ball pythons.

The word "RESPECT" is thrown around too loosley in this business because the bottom line is money. How can you show respect for someone who's only motive is money? Maybe the big breeders need to work on their people skills before working on their marketing skills. I have met several of the TOP BREEDERS in the business, I respect 2 Or 3 and they are not who you think they would be!

Why the he!! would Bob Clark risk YEARS and YEARS of future sales by pulling a scam and saying that non co-dom animals are co-dom?? Ha ha! How does that makes sense in any of your heads? I'm not flaming, I'm just curious. I mean, why would he risk such a thing in such a fickle indutry like ours?

That's right. He wouldn't.

But could you imagine the fallou if he was wrong? Yikes. I think I'd wait to breed them myself before I did anything like that. But then again, I don't have the room to fall back if I screwed something like that up.

Where in my post did I say anything about anyone scamming anyone else? Or trying to scam anyone? I simply mentioned the word "Respect"

your also riding the fence, in one paragraph you are saying there is no way Bob would mislead anyone and in the next paragraph you saying "But what if he is wrong" get off the fence and make a stand.. lol...jk..

I never meant to mislead anyone with my posting name, I just forgot my password under my rmontez login so I setup a new account.

Thanks
Rene Montez

Just putting the 2 cents (Canadian) in the thread. I didn't bother to look at which thread it followed.

Sorry mate, wasn't talking directly at you.
-----

but I wanted to make sure. This has been entertaining but I think I have to go to bed. I have to work in the morning...

Its all so damn much! LOL!

"""""I wouldn't come home to sweet smell of rat/mice every day just because I enjoy it. I would'nt spend hours and hours feeding, cycling, and pairing up ball pythons just for the simple joy of watching babies hatch out."""""""

Keep this mentality and you will fail....

"""""this whole business is about money, """"

You are WRONG, there are a few of us that are not greedy and LOVE when heads poke out.Doesn't matter to me what comes out, as long as its healthy.

Its people with $ signs in thier heads that ruin this hobby for alot of others.

Please disregaurd my last post as I was unaware that you were the "Native".

After seeing you were in fact the native, I have no further reason to post any more about greed or any cult like followings of the ball python society.

You posted an "I disagree with you" response to Native...

Then you found out who Native is...

So then you posted a "Whoops...disregard my last post" response to him...

Why does it matter who he is?
You either believe what you posted to him or you don't.
I can understand posting something like "Whoops...sorry that I came on a bit strong...I'm having a rough day".
I am a little puzzled by "Whoops...sorry that I came on a bit strong...I've just realized who you are".

Sorry Renaissance,

My post was not meant to be a "whoops, I didn't realize who you were, sorry" It was more of an oops, I see who you are now your lame posts almost make sense to me.

I can't help but wonder why jyohe is not all over this thread. Did you tell him about it yet Rene?

I think JY can post what kind of person I am since I have only associated with him through e-mail or the forum. But if you feel you know something about me that others here don't know please feel free to post it here for everyone to see! Anyone who knows me and who has had the chance to spend some time with would never put the words "Greedy" and my name in the same sentance.

Rene Montez

You show us the money. What morphs or expensive balls do you have? Look at NERD, RDR, SNAKEKEEPER, and so on. They all have projects that you don't know about. They can share with us when they are good and ready. Maybe they don't want folks knowing everything. How do you think they stay one step ahead of the rest of us hobbiers? I've even got a project you don't know about, but ask me what it is and I would do the same thing that the big guys are doing. By the way, my project white back albinos.

In case you do not know this; Bob Clark was the first breeder to produce Albino Burms, Albino Ball Pythons and Albino Retics! If memory serves, he also produced the first captive Tiger and Super Tiger Retics not to mention Granite Burms. I am not saying Bob Clark is a God but in the snake breeding community, he is real close. Show some respect to a pioneer in this field and try producing something yourself other than just negative BS! Enough said.

Blake Coston

Minor correction, the first tigers were reproduced by Karl Herman and the first super tigers were produced by Al and Cindy Baldogo. But Bob did infact bring the 3 albinos into the picture

I learned all I know about breeding retics from him, deffinatly a pioneer among snake keepers.