Her posts have always been the farthest from "trolly". She as always been here to give information and has always been neutral about it. And your rationalization about your wording is like saying "I didn't call you a b*tch, I called you b*tchy." Wow... big difference.Originally Posted by bckrazy
![]()
Whether Alicia is your friend or not, doesn't mean you have to agree with everything she says, or the way/tone in which she says it. You can have a friend and not agree with them... I normally don't have an issue with Alicia except for her tone and the way she phrases things on here. She could be nicer about it if she wanted to (Same here... and normally I'm civil, but I have little tolerance for Alicia's, and now, her mother's, snippy comments for anyone who doesn't agree with them).
I didn't find her comment hard to follow... but I believe this is what she meant by her post: (Follow along please, I divided it into two parts
There are a lot of people, including on this board, that have cared for their animals well and yet the animals die at a very young age, though no fault of their own. = Many people have lost animals at a very young age, even though they were well cared for. The pets dying early was not the owner's fault.
But when comments like Age = Well Cared for keep perpetuating it tends to make the people who lose animals young feel guilty as if somehow they are at fault for losing their animal which is not always true.
Just because someone's animal has reached old age, does not mean that it has been well cared for vs. someone's animal who died at a young age means that it was not well cared for. Age at time of death does not show a connection to how well cared for they were.
Bookmarks