Why does everyone think they're even entitled to meddle in her business and interrogate her..... UNLESS....there's evidence that there was some kind of abuse or neglect? That has not been demonstrated as far as I can see.
^^^ This. :hail:
PG
has in the past talked openly about her animals, collectively and individually, and
has in the past posted pictures. They always appeared healthy and well-cared for. She certainly has far,
far more than *I* would ever own or even want at any one time. But I don't feel that fact alone gives me (or anyone else) the right to start firing a bunch of questions and
demanding answers when I have not seen any evidence of abuse or neglect ... and I have not.
If she lived in my neighborhood
and there was evidence of neglect/abuse or a public nuisance caused by the number of animals
then I would question it. But not in the venue of an internet forum, when I have NO direct evidence of any such thing. To continually question, demand answers, and form judgments in
those instances is working purely on assumption, not on certainty.
It may be true that Fluffyzoocrew was asked many of the same questions ... but were they in the same tone, and with so many joining in, seemingly just for the sake of doing so? It's also possible Fluffy was more mature ("mature" as in "older") than PG and so perhaps better able to handle all the questions and less apt to feel attacked and get defensive. PG's reaction alone does not provide "proof" that anyone is correct in their accusations/assumptions/judgments; and there
is a line between "questions of caring concern" and "interrogation complete with accusations".
Also note that Fluffy is no longer posting here anymore. So as graciously as she handled being questioned, it's also
possible that she decided to leave
because of continually being questioned/interrogated/judged ... regardless of how graciously she handled it at the time.