Ok, that's you. You are both a rescuer and an adopter of rescue animals.

But that in no way offers an argument against what I said. Indeed, you made it SOUND LIKE you are a person involved in rescuing domestic animals from the wild...or wherever you have found yours.

With your definition of "rescue" combined with your assertion here that you both rescue and adopt, I also have rescued animals, just not for a while. I have taken in several abandoned animals in my 73 years of life.

That still doesn't justify your complaint about people applying the adjective "rescue" to animals they adopt through animal rescue organizations or individuals.

Indeed, if you don't rescue animals from whatever conditions in order to offer them up to others for adoption, you only sort of qualify as a rescuer, in the same way I do.

Despite having a legitimate claim to your definition of "rescuer," I still wouldn't call myself a rescuer of animals.

To me that label applies only to people who rescue animals from bad situations AS A MAJOR ASPECT OF THEIR LIVES.

I deeply respect the very hard and time consuming work they do. The fact they do that for more than just themselves to me means a lot more than merely rescuing animals to keep with one's own family.

Maybe I missed something here, but it seems to me you are no more (and no less) qualified for that label than I am.

So. Truce?