Oh well sorry then, that once again you have proven how smypathy should be omitted from certain conventions (such as this thread) becuase it is against the rules, or not considered 'relevant'. Good to know people aren't stopping to think these days... it must be efficient to do so. I say my input is very relevant, becuase it is the lack of people's ability think outside the static conventions that make the situation in the OPs thread a huge shame. I agreed with the points raised, but disagreed with the attitudes in which such points were made... how is that off topic? It may not be a simple black and white "yes" or "no" like you wanted... but that last time I checked this was a 'discussion board' and not a voting committee. Other members of this topic chose to interact with my posts which makes my input very valid, thank you. Lets try this on for size... if the man was a relative of yours, would you simply sit back and not flinch becuase the status of the man's relationship to you is "not relevant"? His vet status is simply a signifier of the magnitude of the sad shame involved in the situation. It may not be enough to change the rules... but it sure as hell should've at least aroused more sympathy than it did. Especially considering that if the same thing happened to anyone else, it might not have resulted in such grave consequences, which makes this tragedy both unlucky, and a shame. That was my point... and I guess I should thank you becuase you have aided in solidifying this point even further; these days if something cannot be boxed and filed for within static conventions (the term 'blind sheep' immediately springs to mind), it should be omitted from any emotional attachment whatsoever. Why? Because people like you don't really care for thinking beyond what is expected of you.