I'm really struggling here.

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

It’s my suspicion that, generally speaking, when people are overly critical of another on an online forum (any forum, not just this one) regarding their animal care, it isn’t over concern for the welfare of the animal, as they usually claim. They do it for the same reason people insult or demean each other over virtually everything else: to make themselves feel superior.
If someone REALLY has a concern over the care of animals belonging to others, they take a softer, and more informative approach.
The internet provides a great opportunity to be nasty to strangers, and many of us will take full advantage.

Thank you for your most valid and well thought out contribution, to a thread that passed a while back now.
I suspect that you now feel suitably 'superior'.
I'll be sure to tell Greenpeace your opinions, when they're attacking whalers, and hunt disrupters when they're obstructing hunts, etc.. Clearly, they should be taking a much softer and more informative approach.

 

[WhistlingBadger]

I'll be sure to tell Greenpeace your opinions, when they're attacking whalers, and hunt disrupters when they're obstructing hunts, etc.. Clearly, they should be taking a much softer and more informative approach.

That is open for debate. But not here. I'm sure there are forums that would love to argue such things. This is not one of them.

It is forum policy to use respectful and helpful language, especially when we disagree. I guess it might be fair to call it a softer, more informative approach. If we can't keep it that way, please find another place to discuss. Thanks.