Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinehaven  Obviously if the OP is posting this after her 5 year ordeal, it has caused her to suffer harm. Wether it's mentally, emotionally, financially or what ever, she's been affected by what her buyer has posted. It's claimed (from the posted links) that the OP is a bad breeder and that the pups seizure was Possibly caused by the half brother/sister breeding, this wasn't proven and seizures even ended after changing foods, but the OP is still being called a bad breeder?
My guess if the OP felt that she was at fault, she would just ignored the situation but by coming on her to defend herself it seems that she's just had enough. |
But why come on and bring up a 4 year old post? The latest post that she offered up as an example is from 2007 and was an update on how the dog was doing with the new family. If yorkie was still posting things about the breeder, then yes, she should have the right to defend herself. But it just seems like a moot point to be dragging it back in to the spotlight now.
Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative about this. It just doesn't make sense to me to rehash this publicly now. Does she have the right to have her feelings hurt because of what was posted? Of course. But calling it defamation when an opinion is expressed is just as hurtful (In MY opinion, of course
)