This is a placeholder text
Group text
by joanro on 29 April 2012 - 22:04
by beetree on 29 April 2012 - 23:04
by GSDPACK on 29 April 2012 - 23:04
The question is: Can he have NORMAL 100% pain free life after the surgery and full recovery? Of course not counting the arthritis he can develop later in his life due to the surgical procedure.
by Jenni78 on 30 April 2012 - 01:04
I don't want to go into the necessary details to explain the situation because I don't want to villify someone who may not deserve it. Things are not always what they seem and if I can rationally give someone the benefit of the doubt, I will do so. Can't we leave it at that? Whether someone "deserves" any money back or not is not relevant if the safety of the dog requires it.
by Red Sable on 30 April 2012 - 10:04
Hi Joanro, I read both threads, and the buyer of the pup said this:
"If you want the truth and the WHOLE story, including the proof that the breeder agreed to refund , pm me. This is just another ploy to get out of the deal that was agreed upon. It's a shame what someone will do to get sympathy."
I also read Jenni's posts where she implies it is abuse, look at Starrchars post above??
At six months??? What did Thound do, hack it with an axe?
Jenni wants to come across as caring for her dogs, then, jeepers, why is she on here even asking? Sorry, reaks of BS to me.
If the dog truly comes first, none of this would have been an issue. No one would be implying anything, both parties would be working on this together.
I've never had ANY problems with joints at all in any of my GSD's, and I've made mistakes, stairs, over exercise and whatever.
I agree with those that say this is genetic, and I would never buy from a breeder that looks to blame it one the buyer, as a slippery way out.
by mollyandjack on 30 April 2012 - 11:04
by Abby Normal on 30 April 2012 - 12:04
Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, when I said breeder responsibility, I meant in terms of whether a refund should be given.
It is absolutely the responsibility of the breeder to do all they can for their pups, including getting them back if it's necessary and giving them whatever care is needed for their well being. Sorry for the confusion.
by Blitzen on 30 April 2012 - 12:04
by Blitzen on 30 April 2012 - 12:04
So we're not talking about the dog with the bilateral UAP? That make sense; I've been wondering why it was going to be so expensive to "fix" that surgically and why the insurance policy wasn't used to help pay for the surgery.
by Jenni78 on 30 April 2012 - 13:04
EVERYONE would get money back from me if needed, regardless of their innocence or guilt, intelligence or lack of, class or lack of, honesty or lack of, morals or lack of, designation of white trash, whether they sport a mullet or puffy bangs, marital status, employment status, mother's maiden name, religion, race, financial status, immigration status, whether right-handed or left, matching socks or not, whether they put their pants on one leg at a time or both, sitting on the edge of the bed. Even felons. I don't mind paying a former owner any more than I'd mind paying ransom to get my son back. Your comments are impertinent.
I can't check this from work, so I hope I don't disappoint when I disappear and leave y'all with no one to police.
As an aside, a couple of you are going to look really foolish some day when certain facts/truths are brought to light, since you continually think you know what's going on, post as if you're the world's judge, and then end up eating crow publicly when the truth comes out. Oh, wait, come to think of it, that's already happened a few times. Hmm.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top