Info Craig Hughes (twohy4you)

[Wolfy-hound]

and how many Huffmans can she produce without my male? Zero. It works both ways.

Like I said though, it's solved. He'll get his when they eat.

Exactly, which is why splitting is proper. It took two to tango.

I'm glad it's solved. I hope the miscomminication is talked through by the two of you.

It's perfectly reasonable to think that when the Ivory didn't work, she changed the breeding info on the tracking. Otherwise it would show something that didn't happen, that a Ivory bred the female. I don't think it has a notation for "Tried to breed but male didn't lock".

Now if the dates show the Huffman was put in at the date breeding attempts started, that might "prove" that the Huffman was intended to be the stud in the first place.

 

[MrBig]

I must say that I entered the other thread Craig started, and was redirected here by Abby's post there. Once I saw it was Abby that was the breeder in question I thought "Oh no here we go." But I'm impressed by a number of regulars on here offering an unbiased opinion.I have to side with Craig on this one, the original deal stands unless you BOTH agreed to a change in the split when you agreed to a change in the sire. I understand your frustration once you saw how the clutch turned out, being all huffmans. Personally if I loaned you a snake to breed to your male and I had specific plans for the offspring, I wouldn't have allowed you to change it to a morph that personnally I don't beleive is worth half of what you are asking. The funny thing is that since you didn't change the split agreement when you changed sire's that in the court of law you'd be bound by the original agreement.

PS. Harald you impressed me in this thread. I've always seen your posts and attitude on here as proffesional, but you cut through all the BS here and never showed any bias.

 

[deborahbroadus]

Exactly, which is why splitting is proper. It took two to tango.

I'm glad it's solved. I hope the miscomminication is talked through by the two of you.

It's perfectly reasonable to think that when the Ivory didn't work, she changed the breeding info on the tracking. Otherwise it would show something that didn't happen, that a Ivory bred the female. I don't think it has a notation for "Tried to breed but male didn't lock".

Now if the dates show the Huffman was put in at the date breeding attempts started, that might "prove" that the Huffman was intended to be the stud in the first place.

I agree that if the dates show that the ""Huffy" was put in at the date..."

I disagree that records should be purged because one does not witness a lock. This could be one of the reasons that there are so many "junk" genes around for the next person to assume they have a "new" morph. I disagree, because unless one keeps an eye on them 24/7 and foregoes sleep, etc then it would be basically impossible to say for sure that there was never a lock just because one did not witness it (and it usually appears that there was no lock if both animals retreat to their corners when they are done instead of staying locked and being caught).

Therefore, all records should remain at all times, imo, and there should be no "creative" editing.

 

[Abby]

Sorry. Should have added Craig is suggesting Abby intended to pair the Huffman from the start without his knowledge.

Right, which is an attempt to make me look shady. He is lying about that. I paired the Ivory to the female several times and it didn't result in ANY breeding behavior whatsoever. I know he did not breed her or even try.

I agree that if the dates show that the ""Huffy" was put in at the date..."

I disagree that records should be purged because one does not witness a lock. This could be one of the reasons that there are so many "junk" genes around for the next person to assume they have a "new" morph. I disagree, because unless one keeps an eye on them 24/7 and foregoes sleep, etc then it would be basically impossible to say for sure that there was never a lock just because one did not witness it (and it usually appears that there was no lock if both animals retreat to their corners when they are done instead of staying locked and being caught).

Therefore, all records should remain at all times, imo, and there should be no "creative" editing.

I can edit my breeding projects as I see fit? There was no breeding behavior witnessed, and my snakes live in my bedroom, where I spend 90% of my time. I check on my snakes more than most people possibly can so I am confident in my ability to say NO locks happened with the Ivory. Once I asked him if pairing the Huffman was ok I deleted the Ivory tracking because at that point it became a Huffman x Normal pairing, not a double sire like that would've suggested if I left the Ivory tracking there.

I would have come to an agreement with him on this deal if he didn't get an attitude with me from the get go. I was being completely civil before he started going for threats and trying to dog on me for him "helping me so much" which has nothing to do with this, as I've done just as much for him if not more. Who is the one making this situation right? Me. That's not being greedy, and I was never being greedy in the first place. It's greedy to loan someone a beater car and expect them to buy you a brand new Honda later.

 

[bullies&balls]

I must say that I entered the other thread Craig started, and was redirected here by Abby's post there. Once I saw it was Abby that was the breeder in question I thought "Oh no here we go." But I'm impressed by a number of regulars on here offering an unbiased opinion.I have to side with Craig on this one, the original deal stands unless you BOTH agreed to a change in the split when you agreed to a change in the sire. I understand your frustration once you saw how the clutch turned out, being all huffmans. Personally if I loaned you a snake to breed to your male and I had specific plans for the offspring, I wouldn't have allowed you to change it to a morph that personnally I don't beleive is worth half of what you are asking. The funny thing is that since you didn't change the split agreement when you changed sire's that in the court of law you'd be bound by the original agreement.
PS. Harald you impressed me in this thread. I've always seen your posts and attitude on here as proffesional, but you cut through all the BS here and never showed any bias.

NO WAY would that stand up in a court. Not saying he isn't entitled to 2 snakes from this group. Also, for all the people saying NEVER do it w/o a contract and you'll lose friends, ALL I can say to you is STOP BEING GREEDY SOBs.

 

[bullies&balls]

I agree that if the dates show that the ""Huffy" was put in at the date..."

I disagree that records should be purged because one does not witness a lock. This could be one of the reasons that there are so many "junk" genes around for the next person to assume they have a "new" morph. I disagree, because unless one keeps an eye on them 24/7 and foregoes sleep, etc then it would be basically impossible to say for sure that there was never a lock just because one did not witness it (and it usually appears that there was no lock if both animals retreat to their corners when they are done instead of staying locked and being caught).

Therefore, all records should remain at all times, imo, and there should be no "creative" editing.

Sorry Deb, but I disagree with this statement. Many owner/breeders collections are small enough that a suprise clutch will NOT happen. Many breeders are able toi check on their collections MULTIPLE times per day and KNOW when mating behavior is happening or not. JMO

 

[radera5]

I must say that I entered the other thread Craig started, and was redirected here by Abby's post there. Once I saw it was Abby that was the breeder in question I thought "Oh no here we go." But I'm impressed by a number of regulars on here offering an unbiased opinion.I have to side with Craig on this one, the original deal stands unless you BOTH agreed to a change in the split when you agreed to a change in the sire. I understand your frustration once you saw how the clutch turned out, being all huffmans. Personally if I loaned you a snake to breed to your male and I had specific plans for the offspring, I wouldn't have allowed you to change it to a morph that personnally I don't beleive is worth half of what you are asking. The funny thing is that since you didn't change the split agreement when you changed sire's that in the court of law you'd be bound by the original agreement.

PS. Harald you impressed me in this thread. I've always seen your posts and attitude on here as proffesional, but you cut through all the BS here and never showed any bias.

So you would have just gotten your normal female back.....No babies at all.
That just seems like a waste of time, effort, money, ect.

In the "other thread" that Criag started HE stated himself that he knew the pairing was going on, so......

Another example maybe:
I order chicken at a restaurant, they come out about ten minuted later and say "I am sorry, we are all out of chicken, we are going to cook you a nice big steak"........If I don't say anything, and I just SIT there with my mouth shut, THEN when they bring me the steak I get all pissed off....telling them that was not my original order! I mean come on really??

Anyone who see's that he DID know the pairing was taking place, and anyone who thinks the clutch of Huffman's should be split up the same as YB's are just funny. That is absolutely silly!

Criag KNEW about the pairing, in reality Abby did ask "enough" about the whole deal. She has posted numerous emails that shows this. Did Abby or Criag go into details enough....No of course not. It does not change the fact that she still said "enough" (in my opinion) to get the point across about when he would be getting.

 

[deborahbroadus]

Sorry Deb, but I disagree with this statement. Many owner/breeders collections are small enough that a suprise clutch will NOT happen. Many breeders are able toi check on their collections MULTIPLE times per day and KNOW when mating behavior is happening or not. JMO

I prefer NOT to rely on human error. I prefer to keep "flawless" records so that if anything strange pops up later...I have some record of what went in a tub with any of my females.

Keeping records, imo, trumps trusting.

 

[radera5]

NO WAY would that stand up in a court. Not saying he isn't entitled to 2 snakes from this group. Also, for all the people saying NEVER do it w/o a contract and you'll lose friends, ALL I can say to you is STOP BEING GREEDY SOBs.

This is SO true! Abby next year I will give you a girl of mine. (If you surprise me with Huffman's, I will come find you and kiss you!)

I don't really know why records matter so much here....the breeder, the one who had the snakes...said the Ivory wasn't happening. She TOLD him she was putting him in with the Huff, and here we are. So records don't really matter, especially since we all know he knew about the pairing....

 

[radera5]

*putting HER in with the Huff....excuse my error.

 

[Abby]

I prefer NOT to rely on human error. I prefer to keep "flawless" records so that if anything strange pops up later...I have some record of what went in a tub with any of my females.

Keeping records, imo, trumps trusting.

Even if somehow he did breed her, it's not like I would've forgotten I paired them before. It wouldn't have been a mystery. Nothing strange would have happened. I know for a fact he didn't pair with her. It's a none issue.

 

[deborahbroadus]

So you would have just gotten your normal female back.....No babies at all.
That just seems like a waste of time, effort, money, ect.

In the "other thread" that Criag started HE stated himself that he knew the pairing was going on, so......

Another example maybe:
I order chicken at a restaurant, they come out about ten minuted later and say "I am sorry, we are all out of chicken, we are going to cook you a nice big steak"........If I don't say anything, and I just SIT there with my mouth shut, THEN when they bring me the steak I get all pissed off....telling them that was not my original order! I mean come on really??

Anyone who see's that he DID know the pairing was taking place, and anyone who thinks the clutch of Huffman's should be split up the same as YB's are just funny. That is absolutely silly!

Criag KNEW about the pairing, in reality Abby did ask "enough" about the whole deal. She has posted numerous emails that shows this. Did Abby or Criag go into details enough....No of course not. It does not change the fact that she still said "enough" (in my opinion) to get the point across about when he would be getting.

I like your reasoning..but let me put some more applicable touches on your simulation...

I order chicken at a restaurant, they come out about ten minuted later and say "I am sorry, we are all out of chicken, we are going to cook you a nice big steak"........If I don't say anything, and I just SIT there with my mouth shut, THEN when they bring me the steak, I get all pissed off WHEN THEY TELL ME THAT THE ORIGINAL PRICE DOES NOT APPLY is understandable.

Some may not mind the cook changing the menu, Steak may be perfectly fine with them, but changing the price may not be.

 

[Abby]

This is SO true! Abby next year I will give you a girl of mine. (If you surprise me with Huffman's, I will come find you and kiss you!)

I don't really know why records matter so much here....the breeder, the one who had the snakes...said the Ivory wasn't happening. She TOLD him she was putting him in with the Huff, and here we are. So records don't really matter, especially since we all know he knew about the pairing....

Contracts are a great concept but they also do not hold any water unless you actually get them legally notarized first. I had a contract years back where a woman ended up stealing the animals I loaned to her and the cops just smirked at the contract. So make sure it is notarized, otherwise you're just using a false security blanket

 

[radera5]

I like your reasoning..but let me put some more applicable touches on your simulation...

I order chicken at a restaurant, they come out about ten minuted later and say "I am sorry, we are all out of chicken, we are going to cook you a nice big steak"........If I don't say anything, and I just SIT there with my mouth shut, THEN when they bring me the steak, I get all pissed off WHEN THEY TELL ME THAT THE ORIGINAL PRICE DOES NOT APPLY is understandable.

Some may not mind the cook changing the menu, Steak may be perfectly fine with them, but changing the price may not be.

Deborah that would really only matter is he was getting less out of all of this though....

BUT he isn't "losing out on any more", he is getting much more.
He is getting his STEAK, for even less than than the chicken! So I still don't see the argument.

Trust me I have played this whole thing out in my head, from the shoes of both parties. I am YET to get Criags side.....at all.

Only thing I could even figure is he has kids or something so he wanted 2 snakes at least. (One for each of them) ......
Like I said about that, take the Huffman, sell it, and buy as many YB as his heart desires!....maybe each kid can have 2 snakes now

 

[Abby]

I like your reasoning..but let me put some more applicable touches on your simulation...

I order chicken at a restaurant, they come out about ten minuted later and say "I am sorry, we are all out of chicken, we are going to cook you a nice big steak"........If I don't say anything, and I just SIT there with my mouth shut, THEN when they bring me the steak, I get all pissed off WHEN THEY TELL ME THAT THE ORIGINAL PRICE DOES NOT APPLY is understandable.

Some may not mind the cook changing the menu, Steak may be perfectly fine with them, but changing the price may not be.

The thing is the original "price" was much lower than what he would be getting with just one Huffman. So it's like getting 10 steaks for the price of a piece of chicken.

 

[Wolfy-hound]

But she didn't say "I'm putting the Huffman in with your girl so you're only going to get one snake."

If the female only laid two eggs, would she say he didn't deserve any at all? Giving one baby to him out of a clutch of two would be splitting it 50/50.

If you offered your het albino to a super hot albino male owner, and the clutch was supposed to be split 50/50.... just because the eggs all end up albino doesn't mean that the male's owner suddenly gets all the babies except for one.

Just because the clutch was Huffmans instead of YB or albino or normals doesn't mean that suddenly the whole deal is switched to "You'll get a single hatchling and be happy". If there was 10 eggs and they were ALL Huffmans, should he still get a single baby? If the original breeding had taken and somehow his female ended up being a low quality YB and all the eggs hatched Ivories... should he get only a single baby then instead of 50/50?

Instead of saying "WOw! Look at the great luck we had!" I see a lot of "Well, you're not entitled to as much as me!" Focusing on the supposed worth of the morph instead of what the original deal was(that wasn't changed) is just wrong.

 

[Abby]

If you offered your het albino to a super hot albino male owner, and the clutch was supposed to be split 50/50.... just because the eggs all end up albino doesn't mean that the male's owner suddenly gets all the babies except for one.

The difference there is the female is actually contributing a gene in that situation - I don't think that comparison applies here at all. JMO.

 

[radera5]

But she didn't say "I'm putting the Huffman in with your girl so you're only going to get one snake."

If the female only laid two eggs, would she say he didn't deserve any at all? Giving one baby to him out of a clutch of two would be splitting it 50/50.

If you offered your het albino to a super hot albino male owner, and the clutch was supposed to be split 50/50.... just because the eggs all end up albino doesn't mean that the male's owner suddenly gets all the babies except for one.

Just because the clutch was Huffmans instead of YB or albino or normals doesn't mean that suddenly the whole deal is switched to "You'll get a single hatchling and be happy". If there was 10 eggs and they were ALL Huffmans, should he still get a single baby? If the original breeding had taken and somehow his female ended up being a low quality YB and all the eggs hatched Ivories... should he get only a single baby then instead of 50/50?

Instead of saying "WOw! Look at the great luck we had!" I see a lot of "Well, you're not entitled to as much as me!" Focusing on the supposed worth of the morph instead of what the original deal was(that wasn't changed) is just wrong.

That is where you are missing my point. Het Albino Female (ready to breed) costs about how much? (Ball park) okay now how much are albino babies?? (Ball park again).....now do the same process for Normal Female X Huffman and Huffman babies.........That's why it matters

 

[radera5]

The difference there is the female is actually contributing a gene in that situation - I don't think that comparison applies here at all. JMO.

and of course the most obvious reason that I forgot!^^

 

[deborahbroadus]

Deborah that would really only matter is he was getting less out of all of this though....

BUT he isn't "losing out on any more", he is getting much more.
He is getting his STEAK, for even less than than the chicken! So I still don't see the argument.

Trust me I have played this whole thing out in my head, from the shoes of both parties. I am YET to get Criags side.....at all.

Only thing I could even figure is he has kids or something so he wanted 2 snakes at least. (One for each of them) ......
Like I said about that, take the Huffman, sell it, and buy as many YB as his heart desires!....maybe each kid can have 2 snakes now

In another morph application in the pricing theory, you might be right. However, not everyone believes in the "Huffman" without reservations and Black Pastels are not selling for that much more than YBs last I noticed.

Personally, while he may not mind that the Huffman fathered the eggs, he may mind that he's not getting the original deal.

Now...I'm out.