I don't and didn't doubt that you: "meant ever word" that you wrote.

I am sorry that you feel so offended and dismissive of my comments. I was responding to what you had to say, which I consider is a flawed argument. I was not decrying your or suggesting in any way that you were other than well intentioned and articulating your own truth.

However, what an individual experiences or feels does not make it universal. Your analysis - if I may put it that way - of supposed 'love' is a simplistic and conditioned one but you either don't see that or don't wish to acknowledge it to yourself or others or, perhaps, for some other reason wish to deny it.

Your response doesn't surprise me because our population is so conditioned to the notion of 'love' and of what it is supposedly composed that few ever really consider whether the concept meets the reality.

You may accuse me of cynicism and imply that such superficial perception is the cause of me stating as I did. You are wrong.

You also confuse 'love' and 'empathy', the one being self-centred and inward and the other generous and outward. This is also why it is a falsehood that "The love we sow should come back to us..." There is no "should" about it and if it weren't a selfish concept then one wouldn't expect it to "come back" nor would we consider it important, let alone make such a definitive claim. True 'giving' or 'sowing', in your terms, cannot exist if it is done on the basis that the recipient must return the gift in kind. That you cannot see the flaw in that contention is almost certainly because you don't recognise the difference between love and empathy.

I have cared for animals since being a small boy some 70 years ago. I have cared for them, socialised them to the extent that has been necessary to allow them to be safe in our society and among human beings, and have experienced the amazing trust and bonding that is possible with animals.

I have trained attack dogs and guard dogs for the police, many of them with no known pedigree or even breed, simply having been given a last chance at life, after mauling or savaging a human (who probably deserved it) and their carers being given the choice between lethal injection or, if accepted and responsible to training, a satisfying and well cared for future life. Inevitably, because of my ability to bond with and develop confidence in such animals, I was favoured as a trainer for the worst of them. Despite that, I have never ever been bitten.

The 'animal empath' is a myth. It is an example of the appalling tendency of human beings to anthropomorphise. Empathy, as I've said is sharing and involves the ability to understand and feel the experience of another. Humans and animals cannot do that.

Yes, there are many animal 'whisperers' - humans who can relate to an animal or animals and develop a bond that appears to others as an undoubtable understanding, almost a kinship with one another. At times, I have been described as one of those people. I reject that. I am simply someone who respects animals and unless there is little or no option because of the difference between the human and the non-human animal world, I seek to recognise and encourage animals to follow their own natural instincts.

I am sorry that you met my comments with such antipathy for I wasn't attacking you but rather exposing the deficiencies in your article. Perhaps I have misunderstood at least one thing: I thought that useful critique and comment was what writers here sought most, rather than the platitudinous and empty positive or negative one-liners.

If I comment, I try to give something to the writer, to be honest and to explain my agreements or differences. I apologise for having offended you by doing so.

Yes, I know, you will reject all or virtually all I have offered and will no doubt be supported by many. That's o.k. I wish you no ill-will. I was attempting to engage and give you the respect you deserve for writing what you did. As I said originally, "I appreciate the sentiment behind you writing this..."

Take care. Stay safe.

☮️