by Hundmutter on 17 May 2017 - 11:05
Like I said, I don't hold any brief for Molly, but neither do I actually have anything in particular against her; not in a position to judge whether she is any more, or less, of a 'puppy peddlar' than anyone else on here. I leave that up to others, nearer and more able to decide, how true that is of any US breeder (not living over there).
I do however think it perfectly fair to check with anyone posting in her defence (like the OP) to ask whether they have considered exactly WHY she was so soon getting flack over this Report; and that posters are fully informed about the situation as to when her reputation went downhill. (As opposed to keeping shtum, and just standing by and letting yet another person in the breed perhaps get innocently sucked into the cess pit that is Helser's modus operandi). That applies whichever side of the Pond one is seeing things from. As far as I can tell, Molly's excusing of, and any continuing dealings with, anybody like this does her reputation no good, and should move all her associates and buyers to ask searching questions - rather than spring to her defence, or to that of her friends/contacts.
If you are that concerned then MAKE A NEW THREAD
by beetree on 17 May 2017 - 12:05
Dugan, yes, IMO your posts are flippant and feeble attempts at rug sweeping and the questions I asked of you, if answered would support or clear you of motive and or bias in your relationship with the alleged accused in the case brought by PA against M. G.
Trying to eliminate scrutiny of other particulars that go to the motives and characterization in question on the non-profit that is running concurrent with the for profit kennel also goes against truth finding within the topic heading, "Just clarify".
Since there is no public accounting available for scrutiny at this time, the examination of character, business practices, and outcomes is what must be done.
by beetree on 17 May 2017 - 13:05
Western R., HM made an error and named the wrong poster in her post on page 4:
...as to why posters on here were responding negatively to the news about Mystere being listed as running a problematic kennel,
Mystere = Nia C., and probably would not want to be mistaken for M. G. or the running of a problematic kennel. It has been a while since she posted here, but she never operated any kennel that I was aware of, out there on the West Coast and in the state she calls home.
Hopefully, one of you can correct the error and then delete this post.
by Hundmutter on 17 May 2017 - 14:05
Thank you BeeTree, I obviously had the two confused !
I should have double-checked.
MY APOLOGIES, Nia; if you are reading this (or if anyone else can pass this on to Nia C / Mystere, I'd be eternally grateful).
So sorry I accidentally did that.
WR - I am not, however, sorry for what I have been posting, in re Helser; - Dugan v. Eichenluft asked a question. I, to the best of my ability, answered that question. So, please, where is any need for a separate thred ?. Topic to be what ? "An answer to a question on another thred " ???
This isn't 'tittle tattle', his official record speaks for itself. Would you rather I had 'brushed him under the carpet', by not fully answering the OP's question ?
Just because his/her subsequent answers NOW indicate some prior knowledge ?
by Western Rider on 17 May 2017 - 16:05
HM I just reread the opening post and I still see no where it mentions TH. That opening post is about why the kennel was given citations. The title is Just to Clarify and that is what the OP wanted to talk about he did not bring up TH as the topic.
You want to talk about him or something else then make a new thread do not go off topic.
So many times all of you get mad when a member goes off topic especially when it is their thread
by beetree on 17 May 2017 - 17:05
Dugan failed to be convincing or clear when they left the big accusatory hole open with, "...I also understand that no one is perfect and we all either make mistakes, say, or do things we wish we hadn't, which every single one of you have".
It would have to make some of us brain dead not to see where the T. H. reference would be applied within that sermon. Dugan was hoping to apply some kind of absolution for a deliberate, unethical past action with the human condition of being universally imperfect. The PA law however doesn't care about that, nor apparently does the court of public opinion when a pattern of opportunism is seemingly, reappearing.
by Western Rider on 17 May 2017 - 17:05
Enough is enough some just don't want to quit.
You must be logged in to reply to posts