Exactly. The letter gives no evidence that they said these things, and they seem to be understandable reactions to the stress and exhaustion of dealing repeatedly with dangerous situations caused by people's poorly-parented and poorly-managed children. Children are frequently literally screaming, and it is reasonable to be annoyed at this! Dogs are NEVER safe to approach quickly, unexpectedly, very close, as a stranger, and parents whose children do this in their presence ARE being idiots! If they reacted in the moment by accusing people of these things, it would be rude and probably counter-productive but not unprovoked. But I think the letter implies that those phrases are their internal narration only.
The kid being on a leash when the kid cannot be trusted to stay out of a closed door in a stranger's house who has told you why you can't go there and that there's a dog that you can't bother there? At least this suggestion would have prevented the situation from occurring! If your kid can't be trusted to do this, your kid is not well-trained enough to be left unsupervised. Meanwhile, the dog did NOT actually bite anyone, so it wouldn't even be put down at the strictest (and least reasonable and morally incorrect) interpretation of the law!
The whole answer rubbed me the wrong way and the conversation underneath was even worse. Even though the core of the advice was not incorrect, their attitude was needlessly butthurt about the whole thing. (Not to mention that calling people names, even if they did it, wouldn't 'make it hard to claim the moral high ground' against people who come into your house, ignore your warnings to break into your bedroom and assault your dog and then get aggressively in your face threatening to have your dog killed. The moral elevation of these two stances is widely distant.) And almost every single thing they said in the discussion part was wrong.
no subject
The kid being on a leash when the kid cannot be trusted to stay out of a closed door in a stranger's house who has told you why you can't go there and that there's a dog that you can't bother there? At least this suggestion would have prevented the situation from occurring! If your kid can't be trusted to do this, your kid is not well-trained enough to be left unsupervised. Meanwhile, the dog did NOT actually bite anyone, so it wouldn't even be put down at the strictest (and least reasonable and morally incorrect) interpretation of the law!
The whole answer rubbed me the wrong way and the conversation underneath was even worse. Even though the core of the advice was not incorrect, their attitude was needlessly butthurt about the whole thing. (Not to mention that calling people names, even if they did it, wouldn't 'make it hard to claim the moral high ground' against people who come into your house, ignore your warnings to break into your bedroom and assault your dog and then get aggressively in your face threatening to have your dog killed. The moral elevation of these two stances is widely distant.) And almost every single thing they said in the discussion part was wrong.