"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:yp0Mb.17916$sv6.54629@attbi_s52...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:Sw%Lb.17545$sv6.52969@attbi_s52...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
.net...
Thank you. Just read the site. Problem solved!

You're welcome Dudley!

It was immediately obvious to me when I read the post that it
describes
a
right-winger's fantasy of what liberals are like, and that it was
almost
certainly a hoax. It took about 30 seconds of searching to confirm my
suspicion.

--Gary

Actually, you might have spent 45 seconds instead of 30. :-)))
It doesn't look like a hoax at all. I'm reading it as an actual event
that
got out of control because the vet and the store employee weren't on the
same page when the vet made the initial request.

Yes, it seems to have begun as an honest misunderstanding. But if you
read
for 60 seconds instead of 45 :-)), you'll see that many inflammatory
details
were added to the vet's letter as it circulated around the 'net. So that
added portion, at least, is a hoax.

Regards,
Gary

You could say that I guess Gary, but it seems inconclusive if we're
discussing the issue in an analysis context. Saying it's a hoax as that
applies to the entire issue only covers what the vet did AFTER the incident
at the store. Any in depth analysis would have to include the events that
occurred at the store that precluded the vet's response. I think we're both
dealing in semantics a bit here :-)) It's a matter of interpretation I
guess. I'm reading from what Target has said that they honestly believe that
their employee mangled the situation; in fact; causing the misunderstanding.
This doesn't excuse the vet expanding the issue for his own purpose, but I'm
reading what the vet actually said as his interpretation of Target's
corporate policy based on what he understood from the way he was handled by
Target. This would alter my thinking when considering what he said as
interpretation or a hoax. I'll admit, it's a fine line, but I think you have
to factor in his action as unrelated to what happened in the store before
you can assign a hoax title to what he did.
So I'm reading this as separate interpretations; the store's; the vets';
yours; and mine.
Talk about nobody being on the same page!!!! :-))))))))
Dudley