My Response to BlogPaws

September 16, 2011 Leave a comment Go to comments

As some of you may know, my post on Thursday created a bit of a firestorm. I never intended to do anything but express my emotions at once again seeing someone I believed to be less than forthcoming about his background, Michael Ayalon, promoted at an event that I understood to be about pet bloggers, animals, animal welfare and animal lovers. Did I think that BlogPaws would see it? Yes. I fully expected they would. Did I feel like I had attacked them? Quite the contrary. I simply wanted to bring their attention to someone I felt they may have invited as a speaker without knowing his background and history.

Unfortunately, my intentions were clearly misunderstood as you can see by BlogPaws response here. So, I will respond to the charges they have made against me, fully knowing that they will likely go unanswered, or will be responded to with negativity and more assertions that I cannot address ad nauseam.

The Assertions and My Responses

What BlogPaws asserts: “…the assertion that a speaker at BlogPaws supports puppy mills.”
My Response: You can read my post verbatim, but I will say that at no time did I think, nor imply, BlogPaws supports puppy mills. In fact, it never even occurred to me that they would. They have done lots of great things for animals and the animal welfare community. It actually made me very sad when I read this because it seemed so out of alignment with what I thought and believed about BlogPaws.

What BlogPaws asserts: “…we don’t discriminate against breeders”
My Response: Nor did I expect BlogPaws to do so. Breeders and puppy mills are two different things in my book. That may be a matter of definition to some people, but in my opinion responsible breeders are not, nor should they be, compared with puppy mills.

What BlogPaws asserts: “She (and some of her commenters) repeatedly asserted that we “knew” Michael Ayalon designed websites for puppy mills.”
My Response: Funny. I never implied that. In fact, I only stated that I had informed “one of organizers” of Michael Ayalon last year. I didn’t know if the other founders knew about him or what I had shared with Caroline Golon (who BlogPaws named directly in their post). Nor did I use her name anywhere. Why? Because I didn’t want her to get hate mail. Funny how that worked out.

What BlogPaws asserts: “She asserts that Caroline did nothing then, and welcomed this ‘puppy mill supporter’ with open arms to our conference … for the $$$.”
My Response: Actually, I never said that she welcomed “this ‘puppy mill supporter” with open arms to BlogPaws”. What I did say, in response to another blogger who had said “as if the ends justify the means”, was that “I guess the ends do justify the means = $$$” What I was referring to was that sometimes money takes precedence over other things. It was not a statement that I thought they paid Mr. Ayalon for speaking at BlogPaws, as BlogPaws asserts I did, but rather that sometimes business decisions are made that are not necessarily in keeping with the overall good of society or in this case, animal welfare.

What BlogPaws asserts: “The first site,, does offer puppies for sale and contains lots of pictures of cute, healthy looking puppies. But there is nothing on any of those pages that indicates a “puppy mill” operation, as far as we can see. specifically states that they will not ship their puppies and you must pick them up in person.”
My Response: As anyone who has worked in animal welfare knows, the internet has become a prime breeding ground for puppy mills to sell their puppies. Why? Because they are not subject to inspection by the USDA. If you sell a puppy or kitty directly to someone, either through the internet or via the newspaper, you do not fall under the purview of the USDA and can operate as you wish without fear of being inspected or shut down. Congress has a bill before them this year to address this very issue called the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act (H.R.835/S.707). I wrote about here.

What BlogPaws asserts: “Mel rips into Michael for “duping” the (apparently gullible, in her mind) folks at the ASPCA and Petside for recognizing the good work he does…”
My Response: Actually, I don’t think I ripped into the ASPCA or Petside. Nor did I say they were “duped” I merely stated that I thought they had been unaware of him and that I was disappointed that he had been recognized by them as a “hero” and as one of the “Top 25 Pet People”. And, as an aside, I did write each of them to let them know that I thought they had perhaps recognized the wrong person.

What BlogPaws asserts: “I’m not sure about the press release description of ASPCA’s Animal Heroes recognition as an “award,” but as of a few minutes ago, the recognition post is still live on the ASPCA Facebook notes page.”
My Response: Yup. They still have him listed on their FB page, but they also used to have him listed on their website too. It’s not there anymore. As far as the sarcastic commentary about me calling it an “award” vs. just the hero of the week, I refer you to Michael’s own PR postings here, here and here. And lest you think some of these are news articles someone else submitted, I give you the description of the first website I linked to above, PRWeb, and what they do – “It’s simple. You write an announcement about your organization – a new product launch, current promotion, or local team sponsorship – whatever. We distribute your release to every major news site and search engine on the Web, and can put you in front of consumers and journalists.”

What BlogPaws asserts: “Mel shares some links that purport to prove her point. Here, here, and here (WARNING: turn your speakers off before you click to avoid the annoying music). Those last two links go to Kingdom Pups, a site Michael says he has never heard of or worked with. There’s nothing that we can see to show that he has.”
My Response: BlogPaws is actually right on this one – partially. I actually grabbed the wrong links for the last two links of my post. They were supposed to be for and I have corrected that mistake. Regarding,, or should I say, you can compare their addresses here and here. I’ve posted some stuff about them below.

To address some of what BlogPaws implies as “irresponsible blogging”, I provide for you the screenshots I took back in July 2010, when I was researching my original post on Michael Ayalon. If you have read my previous post on Mr Ayalon, you know that I have already expressed a belief that he creates websites for puppy mills, or at the very least, pet stores selling puppy mill puppies. What I lay out below is evidence of Michael using an online alias, Ron Ayalon. You will also see links to Michael through the name Ron Ayalon (or as Michael himself) to online pet stores and websites selling puppies. Two of them I have mentioned in the past, and Both have numerous complaints against them for sick puppies and for offering large amounts of puppies, for sale. This is often common with pet stores who sell puppy mill puppies. Michael/Ron often linked back to these sites and many others at the bottom of his online articles, either as Ron Ayalon or Michael Ayalon. He also created numerous website pages with no real valuable information on them except for the links he provided back to these same pet stores and online websites, both selling puppies. I have chosen to limit the number of screen shots, although I could provide much more, to make it easier for all to read and review. I apologize up front for less than sophisticated presentation style, but when I wrote my original post I was an unsophisticated blogger with a new computer and not a whole lot of knowledge on how to collect a whole page on a website. I have laid them out in an order I hope makes sense. I leave the decision up to you, the reader, to decide if I am wrong about Mr. Ayalon.

To BlogPaws I say I am sorry that you felt that I was attacking you. As I stated above, I was writing in frustration that someone I felt was less than forthcoming on his history would be a speaker at BlogPaws NOT that BlogPaws was somehow involved in anything nefarious. To say I am disappointed in your response is an understatement. I feel let down and that somehow you brought a war into our community that was neither warranted nor wanted, and that is truly a shame.

Examples 1A-1C: An article by Ron Ayalon (a.k.a Michael Ayalon) titled “Discover the Simplest Ways to Sell Your Puppies and Kitties” Note: (seen below) is another one of Mr. Ayalon’s websites. One that seems to be more geared towards those pet stores and puppy mills. It contains some of the same testimonials that are on his other website,

Picture 92
Picture 93
Picture 94
Picture 15

Examples 2A-2D: An online article by Ron Ayalon (a.k.a. Michael Ayalon) titled “Looking for a Cost Effective and Highly Affordable Pet Web Designer?” You may want to read this one to get a sense of who Mr Ayalon was marketing to in this piece. You’ll see Ron Ayalon’s name on the last slide.
Picture 57_2
Picture 58_2
Picture 59_2
Picture 60_2

Example 3: Ron Ayalon (a.k.a. Michael Ayalon) with his website listed as Demonstrating that Ron Ayalon and Michael Ayalon are one in the same person.
Picture 100

Examples 4A-4C: A Ron Ayalon blog post on the blog (no longer in existence) titled “The Elderly Dog: Care and Maintenance” that identifies him as the web designer of This links not only Ron Ayalon to the website, but as the examples above demonstrate, Michael Ayalon to This business has been fined by the state of NY in the past for selling sick puppies to people. They also offer more puppy breeds than I could even believe. Where do all these puppies come from? My guess is puppy mills.
Picture 165
Picture 166
Picture 167

Examples 5A-5D: An article written by Ron Ayalon with a reference to his name, Michael Ayalon, as the owner of The first and last slides are most important because they once again link Ron Ayalon to Michael Ayalon. Ron appears to be the author on many of the posts that feature online pet stores at the bottom – all websites he created. Why the need to use different names? You will see Ron Ayalon listed as the author at the top, but Michael Ayalon listed at the bottom.
Picture 106
Picture 107
Picture 108
Picture 109

Examples 6A-6D: An article by Michael Ayalon titled “Valentine’s Day for Pets” with referenced at the end. We already know that Ron Ayalon is Michael Ayalon and that Ron Ayalon is linked to (he created their website for them), which advertises and sells a lot of puppies. More than can come from any one breeder. You can check out their site here.
Picture 28
Picture 29_4
Picture 30_3
Picture 31_3

Example 7: A report on (now called featuring a news story about, titled “Pet Store Must Repay for Selling Expensive, Sick Puppies” written by Jennifer Barrios from You can also see some of their customer complaints here. It is well-known that most pet store puppies come from puppy mills. One of the tell-tale signs is a pet store selling sick puppies. Puppy mills rarely vaccinate or de-worm their dogs. It takes too much away from their profit margins.
Picture 72

Examples 8A-8D: A Petland website created by Michael Ayalon as the – you can see his name at the bottom of the page (Note: Michael used to list a couple of Petlands that he had created websites for on his home page, but they no longer appear there. Petland is well-known for selling puppy mill puppies and was even investigated by HSUS regarding this matter.)
Picture 64
Picture 65
Picture 66
Picture 67

Examples 9A-9E: Lastly, or, both created by the Pet Web Designer. Both with the same address. Both selling puppies. I leave you with customer complaints and assertions that these dogs came from puppy mills to explore on your own. You can read them here, here, and here (this last one is quite interesting).
Picture 42_3
Picture 43_3
Picture 32_4
Picture 33_4
Picture 40_3

I leave you with two final things to review:
1. Facts about puppy mills taken from the website, a movie about a woman who rescues used up puppy mill breeding bitches before they are shot because they can’t breed anymore (My Daisy was close to being one of those dogs. She came from a puppy mill.)
2. While I was writing and editing this post, Mr Ayalon was editing some of the articles that I had captured in my screen shots. You can see the dates and times these were edited in the shot attached below as well as the time on my computer screen in the upper right-hand corner. It may be nothing. I’ll let you decide. By the way, Saturday is National Puppy Mill Awareness Day. It’s designed to bring awareness to puppy mills. I think I’ve done my part today. Don’t you?
Picture 33_3

Thank you to my friend Amanda for this additional information about PPF Farms, one of Michael’s clients at least according to his website, You can see PPF Farms listed in this petition on the Care2 Petitionsite. The name of the petition is “Justice for Dogs Sold during the Buckeye Dog Auction”. Under “LIST OF BREEDERS AT THE 8/26 AUCTION:” you will find PPF Farms listed. You an see more about dog auctions in this I-Team Investigation: Inside the multi-million dollar business of dog auctions.

Picture 87

My additional thanks to CarolQ for explaining what Michael is really doing is link farming not designing websites. I had never heard of the term before, but now that I do I am even more sad to think he was using this method to help these online puppy mills and pet stores to increase their traffic and thus sell more puppies.

  1. Estelle
    September 16, 2011 at 11:44 PM

    Sorry you have to deal with this when all you are trying to do is bring awareness to the issue of puppy mills, and those who enable puppy mills to be in business. You are not alone, but it continues to be an uphill climb with a lot of resistance along the way. If one new person has become aware, it is worth continuing informing the public.

    Craigslist and other online sites are huge venues for puppy millers. Ask for vet records. If buying a puppy, ask to see proof/documentation that genetic testing has been done on the parents. Ask to see all the dogs on site. A responsible breeder is knowledgeable about the hereditary problems of the breed, will tell you about the good and bad points of the breed, will ask you questions and match the temperament of the dog to you, will tell you if this breed is not a good fit for your lifestyle, requires a spay/neuter contract, is a resource for you to help the new dog adjust and is willing to answer questions throughout the dog’s lifetime, will take the dog back at any point in its life, breeds only one breed (not multiple breeds and not mixes), has only one litter at a time, does not breed back to back litters from the same dog, has homes waiting before planning a breeding so that internet/craigslist sales are not necessary, breeds to the breed standard.

    • Mel
      September 17, 2011 at 12:05 AM

      Thanks Estelle. That truly was my intent. If BlogPaws had simply said they didn’t know, or we’ll investigate this, that would have been the end of the matter. As it is, I am deeply disappointed that it had to go this way. I never intended to attack BlogPaws at any time. Their response completely took me off-guard.

      Thank you for adding to the puppy mill information. I hope it provides people with more information so they can be informed before buying or adopting a puppy – whether from a responsible breeder or from a rescue or shelter.

  2. September 17, 2011 at 1:53 AM

    Wow. I too was hoping to one day attend BlogPaws, but any organization who defends anyone profitting from puppy mills would never have my support. Period.

    Thanks for bringing this to the attention of those of us who don’t, sadly, pay enough attention to who’s doing what in the dog world.

    • September 17, 2011 at 4:16 AM

      It is good to see you have cleared up the mistaken message that BlogPaws took from your post. So much of this arises from misreading someone’s tone, or misinterpreting intent. It is why I hate email when trying to clear up miscommunication between parties. It is entirely too easy for people to infer something that simply is not there.

      It remains a mystery to me how your post created such a ruckus – when I read it there was nothing that left me with the impression you were dissing BlogPaws or that they were being accused of being a friend to a puppy mill enabler, merely that you were disappointed that someone you found to be completely wrong for pet bloggers was given a platform to speak to hundreds at BlogPaws, the conference. My understanding was that a year ago you passed along information to someone in the Blogpaws group, but no response was received other than that your info had arrived.

      What I see is that your question from a year ago was never answered. And so you brought it up on the occasion of finding that Ayalon was a speaker at the conference. I did not see any effort on your part to do anything other than express your disappointment, and once again voice your misgivings and beliefs, according to your research provided here, concerning the subject of the post, Michael Ayalon.

      Standing back and looking, this whole incident has an air of the theater of the absurd. Don’t mistake me. I’m not saying that people’s feelings are absurd. It is obvious Blogpaws feels as though they were attacked which is a terrible feeling for anyone.I am sure you have felt that all day today. Even if never intended, feeling betrayed or unjustly portrayed has to be addressed to be expunged and I think you have done that. I hope BlogPaws sees that now that some times has passed, because the unmeasured response has I think puzzled and dismayed many. .

      This ship could have been turned around if a measured response had been taken – as most companies try to do when someone says something they feel may tarnish their brand – and then ask questions rather than making accusations. Using the nuclear option as a first option leaves no room for rapprochement.

      The difference between what people in the animal welfare industry and outside of it know about puppy mills, recognizing mill websites, BSL areas, and a host of other issues is evident here. Education is a process, and it sure as hell can be messy.

    • September 17, 2011 at 4:36 AM

      Mel did not accuse Blogpaws of knowingly defending someone who is profiting from puppy mills and I hope that is not your takeaway. I believe Blogpaws did not understand what they were looking at – they are not in the shelter business – and were therefore unable to acknowledge the implications of some of this information. Perhaps they should go to Mike Arms with it or another fair broker in the industry, because this isn’t working.

  3. September 17, 2011 at 4:30 AM

    I am still dazzled BlogPaws took it so personal to think it justified a crusade against you and your blog. Energy that could have been better used to improve their vetting process. Or, if they think their vetting is OK, they could have just said so and leave the decision to their readers.

    Now that we find ourselves in this situation, it adorns you to have apologized to BlogPaws for feeling attacked. Sometimes the best of intentions are misunderstood. Maybe I am naive, but I hope BlogPaws can muster the same empathy so we can all focus united on the fight against puppy mills and their facilitators once more.

    I hope you continue your good work and keep on fighting against puppy mills the way you do.

  4. JJ
    September 17, 2011 at 7:08 AM

    This entire event could have been handled in private by both parties and would have saved face on both sides. Moreover, if it had been handled privately, the problem could have been addressed and perhaps even solved in such a manner that both sides walked away without feeling attacking, insulted, or hurt. Just because we can blog about a thing doesn’t mean we should, especially when the potential for this kind of backlash is so prominent.

    This, to me, is a grossly unprofessional event that – in the world of dog training, behavior, welfare, etc – should have never happened. This is also the reason why I am starting to open my eyes – something I had refused to do on the grounds that I adore most of the people involved in these things on a personal and professional level – to the fact that twitter, blogging, and social networking is unprofessional, potentially damaging, and all around insane.

    However, on the note of blogpaws, their response was unprofessional, petty, and extremely damaging. I have lost so much respect for the dog world as a whole over this one event. Regardless of the nature of the facts or opinions, the problem should have been sorted out privately in a professional manner. The fact that blogpaws made the decision to publicly degrade a professional over the internet, on a blog, where it can never be taken back has left me astounded and questioning my associations with the social media side of this profession.

    Here is where the note of a professional vs. a personal blog should be made. On a personal blog, an open letter, review, rant, or insult can be posted without much in the way of worry. It’s not a big deal if someone doesn’t agree or like what you have to say. When we are speaking of a professional blog, the game is entirely different. Everything posted, everything you have to say MATTERS to the extent that, as a professional site, it is ill advised to post a response of the nature posted on blogpaws.

    It sounds as though the blogpaws post was created in an attempt to clear up some misrepresented views/facts in the original article, but the terminology/language used suggests hostility and, yet again, an unprofessional attitude that I find extremely damaging to the reputation and continued good-nature of dog bloggers as a whole. I just can’t see the reason to publicly criticize any individual no matter the nature of the original post, its hostility, professionalism (or lack thereof), facts, or attitude.

    I am disappointed in the reaction of blogpaws as a professional organization on the simple grounds that it is seen as a professional organization, as a gathering place for (pet) bloggers as a whole and should therefore be impartial and treat all incidences with discretion and courtesy regardless of the nature of the initial event.

  5. September 17, 2011 at 9:04 AM

    All I can say is that I think BlogPaws owes you a major apology. Until you get it I don’t think I can have any respect for them as a professional organization. Until then they are nothing more than a pet blogging bully.

    Thank you, Mel, for working so hard to spread the word amidst all this unnecessary drama. That’s what this community should be about. It’s all about the animals, right? Shouldn’t we all be on the same team?

  6. September 17, 2011 at 10:31 AM

    All I can say is that I’m very sorry that you were dissed by BlogPaws — that, to me, was the unprofessional behavior, not your original post. The only good thing that came out of this was that you marshaled indisputable proof to anyone who might have doubted your intentions about who exactly Michael Ayalon designs his sites for.

    Please do not let this whole flap discourage you. You are a terrific and extremely ethical blogger. And you have the support of a great many members of the pet blogging community.

  7. Mel
    September 17, 2011 at 11:37 AM

    Good for you for speaking up. I know it’s probably pretty uncomfortable to be under this harsh spotlight, but clearly BlogPaws needed a wake up call.

  8. September 17, 2011 at 12:23 PM

    You know…I saw the dude listed as one of the speakers, and knew only little bit about what he does and what I knew wasnt good. So I was surprised to see him listed but didnt think much of it….

    Anyways…I think holding presenters to a certain standard is a good thing, and not facilitating the selling of puppy mill puppies is a basic requirement as far as reqs go.

    • Mel
      September 19, 2011 at 5:03 AM

      Thanks Dino. Actually, you may not remember it, ut you helped me on the original post when I started finding all of his “fake” websites promoting him and his business. At teh time you alled it “Black Hat”. Thanks for helping me!

  9. Ashly Smith
    September 17, 2011 at 2:08 PM

    I agree with JJ. I think it should have been handled in private.

    And Mel — obviously its not your fault – but some of your followers have left flat out rude, accusatory, untrue, and mean comments on the Blog Paws post. Its so immature and its so “knee-jerk” if you know what I mean…

    I have hope that things can STILL be worked out between you and the founders of the organization who wrote that post.

    We’re supposed to be on the same team here — not tearing each other apart. I am saddened by this community’s response.

    • Mel
      September 17, 2011 at 2:18 PM

      Thanks for your comments Ashley. I can only say that when I wrote that post it was not about BlogPaws or even Mr. Ayalon to some extent, it was about me. I was questioning whether or not it was worth keeping up the good fight. It probably should have gone in my journal instead of my blog, but it was completely an expression of frustration that was preceded by having not 1, not 2, but 3 people I know almost buy a pet store puppy in the last two weeks. Seeing Michael at BlogPaws just made me wonder if I was banging my head against a wall for no reason.
      That BlogPaws took it the way they did shocked me. I figured a few people would see my post and that would be it. It wasn’t meant to be a statement on BlogPaws, Petside or the ASPCA. I am so very sad that they took it that way.
      I hope that people an move on because I for one am sick of this mess.

    • Mel
      September 19, 2011 at 5:05 AM

      Thanks Ashly, or should I say Jaime? I think people have opinions and while I am in agreement that this needs to end, I also recognize that people are going to do what they want. I believe we should move on.

  10. September 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

    Like I commented at BlogPaws, I think both sides of this have their hearts in the right place, and I hope this can be resolved between you. Mel, I commend you for raising questions. However, I have to share my thoughts that even though you felt your post was not meant to be an attack on BlogPaws, the words you used made it easy to come to that conclusion.

    I don’t blame BlogPaws for being upset, but I do agree that more of a “Thank you for bringing this to our attention… We’ll look into it” kind of response would have been better. I think you hit a nerve because they have worked to hard to support the battle AGAINST puppy mills and they would certainly not deliberately support someone who was helping mills.

    Emotions are running high about this on all sides. I hope the positive outcome from this is the facilitation of further awareness and passion about fighting puppy mills.

    • Mel
      September 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

      Thanks for your response Kyla. You can read mine to Ashley below. You know I respect you a great deal. What I wrote was not intended to be an attack on BlogPaws. That they chose to see it that way was out of my control. I wish they had just said something like “we didn’t know” or “we’ll look into it” Then we wouldn’t all be sitting here wondering what the hell just happened.

  11. September 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM

    There is a saying ‘truth will out’. It’s best when it happens when the bodies are still warm.

  12. September 17, 2011 at 11:16 PM

    I am impressed by your research! I think that you missed your calling as an investigative reporter.

    • Mel
      September 18, 2011 at 12:43 AM

      Thanks. Most of it was done last July and it took hours and days to find and track down. It’s not everything, but I figured it was enough for this piece. When I asked Michael if he wanted to respond last July on Twitter, he never responded. Instead, I kept seeing articles promoting at the bottom changing to insurance for pets or dental health for pets promotions. That told me what I needed to know. That his work with some of these places was not something he wanted people to know. I had hoped at the time that he would 1) either come clean and people would see it, or 2) stop working with these places altogether. He chose to come clean, on his website. It’s just that no one really looked any deeper.

  13. September 17, 2011 at 11:34 PM

    Dear Mel,

    Thank you so much for taking the time to put together this thoughtful response and documentation. This is detailed info I am glad to now have.

    I’ve been in complete dismay as the events have unfolded over the last 24 hours. I’m sorry for not weighing in personally sooner but haven’t had a moment to collect my thoughts and respond appropriately.

    I, and the BlogPaws team, often receive feedback about individuals and companies from people claiming this or that. While we can’t possibly investigate enough to develop an informed opinion on every claim, I wish I’d taken more time to look into and respond to yours last summer, because we would never, ever have allowed a speaker at BlogPaws who we knew for a fact helps promote puppy mills. Ever. I mean, ever.

    In retrospect, and to a few people’s points, our speaker vetting process needs to eliminate even those whose business practices are under scrutiny for whatever reason.

    The reasons for not investigating your assertions more deeply at the time are innocent but nonetheless now regrettable. We were naïve, we didn’t know you, and we gave the accused the benefit of the doubt by taking him at his word. Speaking for myself, my personal desire to believe the best in everyone well, clearly got the best of me.

    As for the BlogPaws response and the ensuing firestorm, I think Tom’s recent apology covers that. But let me reiterate: we are sorry for responding in that manner.

    I hope that all is not lost with our beautiful little community and that each new day will bring a new lesson for all of us.

    As I sit here typing, my beautiful purebred rescue, Romeo, is on my lap, purring. I think he has the right idea.


    • Mel
      September 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM

      Caroline – Thank you for your response. I couldn’t possibly have expected you to know who I was back when I first contacted you back in July 2010. I sent it at the suggestion of another blogger who felt the Anipals should know. I didn’t even know what an Anipal was back then!

      I am sure that you do receive a lot of suggestions, feedback, etc. on folks. I could not (and did not) expect you to believe what I told you. How could I? You didn’t know me. I didn’t know you either. My only concern at the time, and more recently, was in bringing attention to someone I felt was deceiving so many with his “good works” while doing quite the opposite behind the scenes. I never suspected your motives AT ALL, only that no one had checked to see what I had seen.

      I know you are sincere in your response and your apology. Please let us say that we are done with all of this and can move on. I know that your heart was in the right place and I hope that you know that mine was as well.

      Speaking of purebreed rescues, Jasper (my purebred Sheltie rescue) is lying at my feet right now. Daisy (my purebred Labrador Retriever, puppy mill rescue) is asleep in her kennel and my foster Lady (a purebred Sheltie) is lying nearby. We have much in common.

  14. September 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM

    Ahh, after a search I found your blog. There’s two replies over on mine. The first is in reply to your comment, the second in reply to that I read your post which I had no idea where to find…

  1. September 17, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: