Do you see a difference between "for sale" and " for adoption"?

[KimInMD]

This topic upsets me so much. On several occasions, when I tell people I do dog rescue, they will say to me "i rescued my dog from a petstore, or I adopted my dog from this nice lady down the street who raises (fill in the breed name). I just have to bite my tongue. Let's call an ace an ace! Put any rosy spin on it you want, the cold hard truth is when you whip out your card or checkbook at the petstore, you are not "adopting" that dog, you are BUYING a dog for money. You shouldn't feel warm and fuzzy because you "adopted" that little puppy to get him out of a bad situation, or because he looked sad. No, when you paid for that puppy, you sentenced his mother to another forced breeding, and a life of misery, abuse and neglect. Words do have power, and sugar coating the painful, ugly truth does nothing to help the poor animals still stuck in the mills. The non-profits, the people in the trenches RESCUE, rehabilitate, REHOME, and place for ADOPTION. Those words are badges of honor, and I resent anyone or any store who thinks they have the right to use them to twist and desensitize the public with warm, fuzzy feelings to further line their pockets. If you bought the dog, then say it. If it's uncomfortable to say, then ask yourself why? Having people say they "adopted" their purchased dog will do absolutely nothing to change the perspective of someone who abuses or neglects his pets. Laws, enforcement, and non sugar coated public education are the only weapons we have to fight against animal cruelty. Ok- I'm stepping off my soap box now, and going home before the fur starts to fly.

[pandaleigh]

Originally Posted by KimInMD

This topic upsets me so much. On several occasions, when I tell people I do dog rescue, they will say to me "i rescued my dog from a petstore, or I adopted my dog from this nice lady down the street who raises (fill in the breed name). I just have to bite my tongue. Let's call an ace an ace! Put any rosy spin on it you want, the cold hard truth is when you whip out your card or checkbook at the petstore, you are not "adopting" that dog, you are BUYING a dog for money. You shouldn't feel warm and fuzzy because you "adopted" that little puppy to get him out of a bad situation, or because he looked sad. No, when you paid for that puppy, you sentenced his mother to another forced breeding, and a life of misery, abuse and neglect. Words do have power, and sugar coating the painful, ugly truth does nothing to help the poor animals still stuck in the mills. The non-profits, the people in the trenches RESCUE, rehabilitate, REHOME, and place for ADOPTION. Those words are badges of honor, and I resent anyone or any store who thinks they have the right to use them to twist and desensitize the public with warm, fuzzy feelings to further line their pockets. If you bought the dog, then say it. If it's uncomfortable to say, then ask yourself why? Having people say they "adopted" their purchased dog will do absolutely nothing to change the perspective of someone who abuses or neglects his pets. Laws, enforcement, and non sugar coated public education are the only weapons we have to fight against animal cruelty. Ok- I'm stepping off my soap box now, and going home before the fur starts to fly.

I begged a drug dealer's girlfriend to let me take home the 3.5 lb emaciated dog (her healthy weight is 5.5-6) she had in her back yard with 3 large dogs home. I threatened to call AC and she wasn't phased. I whipped out my checkbook and spent $500 on a dog that had a URI so bad the vet said she might not make it through the night. She was a year and a half old.

I say I rescued her, had to whip my checkbook out to do it, but not at a pet store.

If it were at a pet store, I would have called AC, but this dog who could barely walk and didn't know me from Eve was trying to pick her little head up and kiss me.

I still feel awkward saying I rescued her, because you could really see it either way, but I know that if I walked away, she would have died within a few days. I knew that if she did go to a shelter they'd deem her too unhealthy to try to save.

And call it what you want it, that's how Tashi began to own me

[omichka]

Originally Posted by KimInMD

This topic upsets me so much. On several occasions, when I tell people I do dog rescue, they will say to me "i rescued my dog from a petstore, or I adopted my dog from this nice lady down the street who raises (fill in the breed name)

You are SO right !!!! These PRETENDERS piss me off. They do NOT ADOPT, do NOT RESCUE , they DO SUPPORT PUPPY MILLS and BYB.

Everyone wants to look better that he or she is. PRETENDERS !!!!

[hugz4all4]

Adoption to me is bringing an animal (or child) into your home that didnt have or needs a home, like from a rescue, a stray, a rehome etc. When I had Rosie, the hound dog that I brought into my home last year to me I adopted her, she needed a home, food, care and love. When it was time, I adopted her out to another family that was also willing to do those things.
When I got my toy poodle, my sheltie and my beagle, I bought them. Yes, I brought them into my home to love and care for them but I didnt adopt them, I wanted them so I purposly went on a search for them.
Tucker was given to me by a friend.
That is the difference to me.
I agree that the word "it" should not be used when talking about any living thing.

[dawn27]

Originally Posted by pandaleigh

I begged a drug dealer's girlfriend to let me take home the 3.5 lb emaciated dog (her healthy weight is 5.5-6) she had in her back yard with 3 large dogs home. I threatened to call AC and she wasn't phased. I whipped out my checkbook and spent $500 on a dog that had a URI so bad the vet said she might not make it through the night. She was a year and a half old.

I say I rescued her, had to whip my checkbook out to do it, but not at a pet store.

If it were at a pet store, I would have called AC, but this dog who could barely walk and didn't know me from Eve was trying to pick her little head up and kiss me.

I still feel awkward saying I rescued her, because you could really see it either way, but I know that if I walked away, she would have died within a few days. I knew that if she did go to a shelter they'd deem her too unhealthy to try to save.

And call it what you want it, that's how Tashi began to own me

You did reacue her and You should have no trouble saying that you did.... ! If not for you paying out the cash that day thing would have gone very differently.

[Princess10]

I think of adopting as rescuing or a rehome from their previous owner. As for buy/bought that's when you buy from the home of the pups parents/the breeder/greeder. Much later after buying Princess I saw the breeders ads for super cheap yorkies, poms & IW hounds on petfind, etc. Obviously a BYB/BYG, but she did give me the sense that I was 'adopting' her before I bought her. Asking all of the concerning questions, etc. & talking to me at least weekly for the next few weeks til I got her.

Either way, I say that I got Princess from & rarely, 'bought' Princess from X. Certainly I 'adopted' her into our home/family before she even stepped paw in our house. And maybe I did save/rescue her from being sold to a bad breeder or mill, who knows. She's ours, just like my dd is ours, part of the family, & she is never treated as a piece of merchandise.

[kionini]

Originally Posted by KimInMD

This topic upsets me so much. On several occasions, when I tell people I do dog rescue, they will say to me "i rescued my dog from a petstore, or I adopted my dog from this nice lady down the street who raises (fill in the breed name). I just have to bite my tongue. Let's call an ace an ace! Put any rosy spin on it you want, the cold hard truth is when you whip out your card or checkbook at the petstore, you are not "adopting" that dog, you are BUYING a dog for money. You shouldn't feel warm and fuzzy because you "adopted" that little puppy to get him out of a bad situation, or because he looked sad. No, when you paid for that puppy, you sentenced his mother to another forced breeding, and a life of misery, abuse and neglect. Words do have power, and sugar coating the painful, ugly truth does nothing to help the poor animals still stuck in the mills. The non-profits, the people in the trenches RESCUE, rehabilitate, REHOME, and place for ADOPTION. Those words are badges of honor, and I resent anyone or any store who thinks they have the right to use them to twist and desensitize the public with warm, fuzzy feelings to further line their pockets. If you bought the dog, then say it. If it's uncomfortable to say, then ask yourself why? Having people say they "adopted" their purchased dog will do absolutely nothing to change the perspective of someone who abuses or neglects his pets. Laws, enforcement, and non sugar coated public education are the only weapons we have to fight against animal cruelty. Ok- I'm stepping off my soap box now, and going home before the fur starts to fly.

From your reasoning, then, rescues as well as animals from breeders of any type, are bought. Any time monies changes hands there's a transaction, a purchase and a sale by definition. If I rescue a dog from a shelter, I don't get him free. I pay adoption fees, some refer to this as "a donation." etc. A breeder calls it a "price."

My saying that my furkids were adopted is not to get a chip thrill or a "warm fuzzy" feeling. I say adopted for 2 reasons:
1) That's how I feel them, since I did not give birth to them, yet I feel for them as if I had gone through labor for them.
2) When I say "I've adopted 2 furkids", my intention is to let the idiots around me know from the get-go that my Yorkies are to be treated as my children and not as objects.

My point was exactly what you say 'EDUCATION.' Never mind the scamers getting in on the action, that's inevitable, they will still pull at the heart strings to line their pockets.

But if we start to differentiate animals from objects, maybe things will start to change. And the way it starts is by leading through example. I never refer to my little ones as "it", that would send the wrong message and I would not have the right to get angry when someone treated my babies as "things" that don't feel and hurt.

I'm not trying to sugar coat anything, I have no need to. I am trying to make people aware that change does really begin with us, through our example, one person at a time.

I haven't rescued yet, or rehabilitated to be honest. But I do have a Paypal account where I give to shelters, help feed and clothe, and help pay for urgently needed surgeries for animals. I volunteer at my local shelter, I bring food, blankets, etc. I spend hours upon hours doing cross-postings on several media accounts like Facebook and Twitter to help animals all over the country.

I don't just give lip service, I actually do contribute any way that I can. I don't want a badge of honor, I don't want my 15 minutes of fame nor a pad on the shoulder. I sincerely could give a flying pepper about what people think. All I want is to help those that can't help themselves.

I realize is impossible for one person to really make a difference, and silly me, I thought all YTs would see my point, read my original post and actually comprehend what I wrote.

To those of you who did get it, even if you don't agree. I'm so glad.
For those of you who get it and want to be part of the solution, THAN YOU! from the bottom of my heart.
For those of you who went off in a tangent, what can I say?

[kionini]

Originally Posted by omichka

You are SO right !!!! These PRETENDERS piss me off. They do NOT ADOPT, do NOT RESCUE , they DO SUPPORT PUPPY MILLS and BYB.

Everyone wants to look better that he or she is. PRETENDERS !!!!

I do hope you're not a pretender And actually do more than just lip service

[gemy]

Originally Posted by kionini

From your reasoning, then, rescues as well as animals from breeders of any type, are bought. Any time monies changes hands there's a transaction, a purchase and a sale by definition. If I rescue a dog from a shelter, I don't get him free. I pay adoption fees, some refer to this as "a donation." etc. A breeder calls it a "price."

My saying that my furkids were adopted is not to get a chip thrill or a "warm fuzzy" feeling. I say adopted for 2 reasons:
1) That's how I feel them, since I did not give birth to them, yet I feel for them as if I had gone through labor for them.
2) When I say "I've adopted 2 furkids", my intention is to let the idiots around me know from the get-go that my Yorkies are to be treated as my children and not as objects.

My point was exactly what you say 'EDUCATION.' Never mind the scamers getting in on the action, that's inevitable, they will still pull at the heart strings to line their pockets.

But if we start to differentiate animals from objects, maybe things will start to change. And the way it starts is by leading through example. I never refer to my little ones as "it", that would send the wrong message and I would not have the right to get angry when someone treated my babies as "things" that don't feel and hurt.

I'm not trying to sugar coat anything, I have no need to. I am trying to make people aware that change does really begin with us, through our example, one person at a time.

I haven't rescued yet, or rehabilitated to be honest. But I do have a Paypal account where I give to shelters, help feed and clothe, and help pay for urgently needed surgeries for animals. I volunteer at my local shelter, I bring food, blankets, etc. I spend hours upon hours doing cross-postings on several media accounts like Facebook and Twitter to help animals all over the country.

I don't just give lip service, I actually do contribute any way that I can. I don't want a badge of honor, I don't want my 15 minutes of fame nor a pad on the shoulder. I sincerely could give a flying pepper about what people think. All I want is to help those that can't help themselves.

I realize is impossible for one person to really make a difference, and silly me, I thought all YTs would see my point, read my original post and actually comprehend what I wrote.

To those of you who did get it, even if you don't agree. I'm so glad.
For those of you who get it and want to be part of the solution, THAN YOU! from the bottom of my heart.
For those of you who went off in a tangent, what can I say?

Mother Teresa said; We can do no great things; Only little things with great love". She a single, poor nun, make a huge difference in life around her.

And yes one single person; You can make a difference. You probably have already touched, changed, or at least opened more than one mind and heart just by your belief, your sincerity, and your own unique authenticity.

[KimInMD]

[QUOTE=kionini;3805123]From your reasoning, then, rescues as well as animals from breeders of any type, are bought. Any time monies changes hands there's a transaction, a purchase and a sale by definition. If I rescue a dog from a shelter, I don't get him free. I pay adoption fees, some refer to this as "a donation." etc. A breeder calls it a "price.".
Oh my goodness, you seem like an articulate and smart lady. Surely you understand the difference between FOR PROFIT and NON PROFIT? It is not wrong for rescues to ask adopters to be reimbursed for spays and shots. I personally know of no rescue that profits from their adoptions. The money goes right back to feed and vet more dogs. I think I was clear with what I meant, and that was mean to muddy the issue. People (the public) have actually ask me at adoption events why we don't "give away the dogs for free if they need homes". It's irresponsible to perpetuate the notion that someone is "buying" (for profit) a shelter or a rescue dog, and putting them in the same category as a pet store or puppy mill purchase is just plain wrong.
My saying that my furkids were adopted is not to get a chip thrill or a "warm fuzzy" feeling. I say adopted for 2 reasons: 1) That's how I feel them, since I did not give birth to them, yet I feel for them as if I had gone through labor for them.
2) When I say "I've adopted 2 furkids", my intention is to let the idiots around me know from the get-go that my Yorkies are to be treated as my children and not as objects.
I do understand exactly what you are saying. We can just agree to disagree, but trust me, everyone here also feels that their Yorkies should be treated as their children, including me.
My point was exactly what you say 'EDUCATION.' Never mind the scamers getting in on the action, that's inevitable, they will still pull at the heart strings to line their pockets.
I couldn't agree more. We both have the same goal, but disagree passionately about the terminology.
But if we start to differentiate animals from objects, maybe things will start to change. And the way it starts is by leading through example. I never refer to my little ones as "it", that would send the wrong message and I would not have the right to get angry when someone treated my babies as "things" that don't feel and hurt.[/COLOR]
Again I agree on the use of the word "it". My beef was with the word "adoption" used in the context of a STORE BOUGHT or BYBred dog. And by the way, a reputable breeder (bettering the breed), with medical care for mom, and selling healthy puppies with limited registration is not my beef either, though I know some rescue people that want no breeding whatsoever. It's a matter of opinion..
[COLOR="Black"]I'm not trying to sugar coat anything, I have no need to. I am trying to make people aware that change does really begin with us, through our example, one person at a time.
Again, agreed, it the terminology we don't agree on.
[COLOR="Black"]I haven't rescued yet, or rehabilitated to be honest. But I do have a Paypal account where I give to shelters, help feed and clothe, and help pay for urgently needed surgeries for animals. I volunteer at my local shelter, I bring food, blankets, etc. I spend hours upon hours doing cross-postings on several media accounts like Facebook and Twitter to help animals all over the country.
Thank you! Shelters and rescues need all the help they can get, and appreciate everyone who helps in any way.
I don't just give lip service, I actually do contribute any way that I can. I don't want a badge of honor, I don't want my 15 minutes of fame nor a pad on the shoulder. I sincerely could give a flying pepper about what people think.. Nor do I want fame, but I DO care about what people think, and hope to change public awareness, and encourage adoption from shelters and rescues.
I realize is impossible for one person to really make a difference, and silly me, I thought all YTs would see my point, read my original post and actually comprehend what I wrote. I really do understand. I just respectfully disagree with your terminology.

[navillusc]

Not that I see pets as possessions...I do not...they are precious family members...however, to me, I think the difference is in where the emphasis is placed...welfare of the 'product' vs profit for transfer of ownership.

Yorkies for Adoption is when you re-home a Yorkie someone else bought or acquired, perhaps as a gift, at an earlier time...not for profit, but maybe for recovery of some of the expense of ownership...but because you care about them and their well-being but are unable to or cannot keep them any more due to conditions...not because it's a way to make a living. Adoption implies the welfare of the adopted as the primary objective...not the price of 'transfer of ownership'.

Yorkies for Sale is when you are pricing for and expecting a profit beyond expenses and a reasonable amount for your time, or complete recovery of all your costs, especially if there's a little something extra in it for you, and specifically when the only previous owner also owned at least the dam who welped the offspring and you are providing the initial 'litter mate separation home' whether as a puppy or an adult. At any time you price for substantial profit above expenses and recovery of admininstrative costs...as income, the re-home becomes a sale or re-sale rather than an adoption. For sale implies a product.

I re-homed two Yorkies, meaning that (1) they had former families between the 'breeder' and myself, and (2) fees paid did not cover the retail costs of the accessories transferred with ownership of the pups...never mind recovering all of of the initial costs of the purchases of the pups themselves or vet expenses since initial ownership transfer, nor additional profit.

I also re-homed a Yorkie-Poo, as a rescue, whose previous owner was unknown with no profit involved, and ferals and strays and dumped animals.

[KimInMD]

Originally Posted by navillusc

Not that I see pets as possessions...I do not...they are precious family members...however, to me, I think the difference is in where the emphasis is placed...welfare of the 'product' vs profit for transfer of ownership.

Yorkies for Adoption is when you re-home a Yorkie someone else bought or acquired, perhaps as a gift, at an earlier time...not for profit, but maybe for recovery of some of the expense of ownership...but because you care about them and their well-being but are unable to or cannot keep them any more due to conditions...not because it's a way to make a living. Adoption implies the welfare of the adopted as the primary objective...not the price of 'transfer of ownership'.

Yorkies for Sale is when you are pricing for and expecting a profit beyond expenses and a reasonable amount for your time, or complete recovery of all your costs, especially if there's a little something extra in it for you, and specifically when the only previous owner also owned at least the dam who welped the offspring and you are providing the initial 'litter mate separation home' whether as a puppy or an adult. At any time you price for substantial profit above expenses and recovery of admininstrative costs...as income, the re-home becomes a sale or re-sale rather than an adoption. For sale implies a product.

I re-homed two Yorkies, meaning that (1) they had former families between the 'breeder' and myself, and (2) fees paid did not cover the retail costs of the accessories transferred with ownership of the pups...never mind recovering all of of the initial costs of the purchases of the pups themselves or vet expenses since initial ownership transfer, nor additional profit.

I also re-homed a Yorkie-Poo, as a rescue, whose previous owner was unknown with no profit involved, and ferals and strays and dumped animals.

Excelent post!

[KazzyK810]

Originally Posted by navillusc

Not that I see pets as possessions...I do not...they are precious family members...however, to me, I think the difference is in where the emphasis is placed...welfare of the 'product' vs profit for transfer of ownership.

Yorkies for Adoption is when you re-home a Yorkie someone else bought or acquired, perhaps as a gift, at an earlier time...not for profit, but maybe for recovery of some of the expense of ownership...but because you care about them and their well-being but are unable to or cannot keep them any more due to conditions...not because it's a way to make a living. Adoption implies the welfare of the adopted as the primary objective...not the price of 'transfer of ownership'.

Yorkies for Sale is when you are pricing for and expecting a profit beyond expenses and a reasonable amount for your time, or complete recovery of all your costs, especially if there's a little something extra in it for you, and specifically when the only previous owner also owned at least the dam who welped the offspring and you are providing the initial 'litter mate separation home' whether as a puppy or an adult. At any time you price for substantial profit above expenses and recovery of admininstrative costs...as income, the re-home becomes a sale or re-sale rather than an adoption. For sale implies a product.

I re-homed two Yorkies, meaning that (1) they had former families between the 'breeder' and myself, and (2) fees paid did not cover the retail costs of the accessories transferred with ownership of the pups...never mind recovering all of of the initial costs of the purchases of the pups themselves or vet expenses since initial ownership transfer, nor additional profit.

I also re-homed a Yorkie-Poo, as a rescue, whose previous owner was unknown with no profit involved, and ferals and strays and dumped animals.

From what source are you getting your definition of terms? Or, is it your personal belief as to what each term means to you?

[MyTrixie143]

I've always thought of "adoption" in ways of rescues and rehomes and "for sale" as puppies and dogs from breeders.

Being a breeder I don't think I actually used either word. I always just said looking for their forever homes or something similar.

I do agree for sale does seem a bit too possessive like one would use for an object for sale but it doesn't bother me as much as to what their intentions are. Terminology can be tricky and not everyone sees just black and white. Just like some think saying you have a teacup yorkie is a way to say you have a tiny dog while others think it means it is a special breed of yorkie.

[navillusc]

Originally Posted by KazzyK810

From what source are you getting your definition of terms? Or, is it your personal belief as to what each term means to you?

It is my merely my opinion, but is based on defining factors of the individual terms and logical reasoning as to how those terms are semantically used and/or misused and their original definitions and meanings. Words are frequently manipulated to suit the user or deceive a victim.

Re-home is kind of a made up word literally indicating a geographical change. Re-tool is a similar, industrial word used to indicate that machinery/equipment is changed so that a different product can be manufactured. The supermarket re-homes my paycheck on a weekly basis, however my purchases are seen as a sale !

Adoption is well defined by Webster, etc., and has come to have a meaning indicating that the welfare of the adopted is a primary consideration, and also indicates that the adopted have no other, permanent place to go. While I cannot prove why the term was adopted by such as the Humane Society to explain their involvement in the transfer of pets from one 'geographical location' to another (re-home) for those pets who were lost, unwanted, or homeless for whatever reason, it makes sense in that their motive is not 'for commercial gain' or 'self-enrichment'. They are also not 'seeking' to acquire pets for the purpose (brokering) of re-homing) (selling them but 'accepting' responsibility for them until a permanent (adoptive) home can be acquired...they are merely filling a need for an existing overabundance and without simply destroying the excess. I have 'adopted' pets from the Humane society, and paid a fee for the cost of spay/neuter, shots, and to help pay the electric, mortgage, and paychecks of non-volunteers in the range of $40 (years ago) which certainly does not seem to me that anyone is becoming too self-enriched by such a sum.

For Sale is also a pretty well defined term and we have all come to know it generally means someone is 'bettering' themselves by acquiring and intending to sell a 'product' which could be a coat, car, or puppy. The intent is profit and excesses can be discarded without emotional involvement. Selling indicates that a product is acquired (whether bred or purchased/brokered) for the sole purpose of exchanging that product (puppies, included) for profit+cost of acquisition+administrative overhead. Sale items are 'value based' and value is set by each seller until rejected by consumer.

If a supermarket decided their brand of milk was valued at $500/gallon and everyone else valued their brand at $5/gallon, the $500 milk would soon be soured on the shelves unless there was a 'true' value in the milk...in which case there would be a limited, target market, or it would be de-valued (put "on sale') or discarded...unless consumers could be 'deceived' into paying an exorbitant price, enriching considerably the seller.

It is possible to sell a puppy without profit, which basically amounts to a re-home or adoption depending on whether or not the original intent was (a) to transfer the product from point A to point B in exchange for money and (b) whether or not it is a one-time event or a calculated chain of events repeated for the same purpose and (c) if the welfare of the puppy is a consideration. People who sell a puppy they bought or acquired, thinking everything would be great and wonderful and ended up needing a new place for the puppy to live are technically selling and re-homing their pet to new, adoptive parents. How they price the puppy triggers the mindset of re-home/adopt vs sale.

If I buy a puppy for $500, and invest $300 in kennels, carriers, clothes, grooming supplies, and over $1,000 additional in grooming, food, and veterinary care only to discover that things negatively changed and I cannot keep the puppy...if I price the puppy at $250, while it is a 'sale' technically the 'profit' does not cover even the cost of the accessories and makes no attempt to reimburse purchase price or expenses, my intent is shown to be re-homing my puppy to adoptive parents who can care for my puppy where I couldn't any longer since I transfer puppy and all associated items to the purchaser.

Breeders who breed 'to create the perfect dog' and/or improve the breed and/or their lines obviously need to find loving, permanent homes for some of their offspring who do not meet the standard or won't show even if they do. They can sell or give away their 'excess' and may be pickier about where they are placed for many reasons. They generally know they will not keep all of the offspring and must find an appropriate way to keep their on-site numbers in line/within a certain range, etc. whether it is due to space or time limitations, or governmental kennel permit dictations. They are in a unique situation in that there is a known need to re-home/adopt out/sell some of their offspring which may or may not be seen as a product based on their reason for breeding. Breeders also set value in their asking price, therefore, there can be profit perceived whether true or not.

Those who breed 'to sell pups' are 'in business' with the primary objective of acquiring a product with the intent of selling, even though they may care for/about the offspring, and no acquisition directly from them or their brokers or re-sellers constitutes re-homing or adoption except from the perspective of the acquiring party who provide the new home and are the adoptive parents despite the physical change of geographical location or new adoptive ownership.

These are completely my own opinions...nothing more. I intend no harm to anyone by stating my opinion...my reason was merely to offer a possible 'clarification' since there is a lot of overlap in these terms, the terminology appears to be used to 'muddy' rather than 'clarify' the subject, and because this subject can be somewhat controversial, unfortunately.

I apologize for the lengthy explanation. I would, of course, welcome any respectful commentary and/or discussion on my clarification or opinion...I could always be mistaken, and if so, I'd like to be better informed by more expert an/or accurate information.

Take care!