Reply To: 01-27-10 – I Like it Anyways

[Elsinore]

I tend to be pretty literal with the descriptions since the vast majority of participants don’t read these threads to know the subtleties we discuss here. However, I can deal with the “no pets” means “no pets of the photographer’s” means a petting zoo horse is fair (I think there’s an argument to be made that it’s not truly a pet).

I’m still iffy about pet store birds…they’re definitely meant as pets, yes? On the other hand, non-family people are allowable, even of those non-family people are close friends we have significant emotional attachment to, so I guess there’s an argument to be made for pets-owned-by-someone-other-than-the-photographer being fair game.

It is way too early for me to be overthinking this THIS much. So I think I’ll go with corsec’s “play it as it lies” and restore Mopsy’s.