I think it's ridiculous and unkind!
2007-09-17 00:34:28 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
To me, it tells me they were a cold hard person. Someone who didn't care about family. Obviously money and the puppy were all that mattered to them. A person with great wealth should consider the less fortunate, even if it is family. Some are not so lucky. I, personally, think it should be outlawed to leave your pet more than what is applicable to take care of them throughout their lifetime. What makes people think that an animal (now I love my pets, don't get me wrong) should live life high in style with diamond collars, pedicures, and psychiatrists while there are millions of people just trying to make ends meet even after they are busting their bum trying to do so is beyond me. I will never understand people like that. To be so cold towards other human beings like that is a shame. But, that is just my opinion. They will be judged by the works they have done and it will serve them right.
2007-09-17 01:15:18 · answer #1 · answered by teashy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I presume you've read the article about the old lady living all her money to her dog. That act tells me, that she was so disappointed o people, and want it to let them know that are nt even worth as the dog, which supposedly was her best friend. She didn't care about the money. She must've said to herself: Nobody will get my money, except my dog. It better pee on the money, than some other spend them around.
Anyway, is the case was so, she could've just donate the money to the poor people or children..................
2007-09-17 07:45:43 · answer #2 · answered by bilezlatko 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't think it's ridiculous and maybe that puppy was the only true friend; although i would leave my money to an association that helps animals with the condition that they accept my puppy too
2007-09-17 07:42:46 · answer #3 · answered by erzebet 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, The puppy wouldn't know what to do with the money besides peeing on it.
2007-09-17 07:39:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, they love the dog for sure but if your referring to the Hensley (spelled wrong) situation she was batty to begin with. I suppose if you have enough to leave money to a pet your allowed to do it.
2007-09-17 07:47:42 · answer #5 · answered by sideways 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One of 2 things, they were surrounded by money grubbing idiots and knew it, or they were a cold hard person.
2007-09-17 07:42:13 · answer #6 · answered by kf 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it means that they loved their puppy,and they want to make sure that sby will take care of it!
now,let's say a guy has kids and they never cared about him,never called him or anything,
but this puppy was always glad to see him and when he was sick the puppy would never leave his side....
hmmmmm,,,,,makes you think doesn't it?âº
2007-09-17 12:11:08 · answer #7 · answered by ....FED UP............ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think they didn't have any friends or any decent family to leave the money to ... possibly their own fault, but maybe not.
I'm not judging anyone, especially someone who's dead ...
2007-09-17 07:53:26 · answer #8 · answered by pir8 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
he/she not taken good care off that could have develop a attachment with human and it looks the comfort and attachment puupy gave but not the human/relatives around
2007-09-17 07:50:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
thats the best thing to do,as the children will not fight over the property,and he/she will not be at peace in heaven
2007-09-17 08:25:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋