Message from discussion Petsmart in the UK - animal abuse exposed

From: holly-ord...@home.com.xxx (Holly E. Ordway)
Subject: Re: Petsmart in the UK - animal abuse exposed
Date: 1999/12/06
Message-ID: <8E93C2CDE5439754hjkgfdjio5408@24.3.9.180>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 557054437
References: <38484c12.137890724@news.agm.net> <82ehf3$233$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net
X-Trace: news.rdc1.md.home.com 944439366 24.3.9.180 (Sun, 05 Dec 1999 16:16:06 PST)
Organization: @Home Network
User-Agent: Xnews/2.09.30
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 16:16:06 PST
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav

flyer...@my-deja.com wrote in <82ehf3$23...@nnrp1.deja.com>:

>It appears that the company has already acknowledged a problem and has
>taken positive steps to address same.  I guess the argument could
>always be made that these steps are not enough, but since the company
>appears to be in a receptive mode, a correspondence to them with
>recommendations would seem to me to be more in order than a boycott.

I agree. A boycott would send the message of "You can't please these people 
no matter what" -- not a message that's conducive to change.

Certainly, it would have been best if the company had not had any problems to 
begin with. But it's not a perfect world; the next best thing is that they 
speedily and effectively correct those problems. And have the corrections 
checked and reported on by other agencies, of course.

Cheers,
Holly