Please send your questions for publication to prudence@slate.com.

Prudie would like to say a word about the letter regarding the cat-sitter and the $2,000 veterinary bill. That word is oy. Never has so much mail descended on Prudie, if you don't count the handicapped stall imbroglio. Prudie wishes to report that there was a boatload of comment ... some supportive of the advice, some ... well, catcalls. Herewith are the picks of the litter, pardon the expression, and a very unexpected, though satisfying resolution.

Prudie,

Are you nuts? You say the cat-sitter should be reimbursed for the vet bill of $2,000 when the owner specifically told him not to incur any expense? No rational person would pay two grand for a cat (a dog, perhaps, but not a cat). And letting an animal die from natural causes is not and never has been a crime. If you think I am heartless, think about all the charities that could use $2,000, including the SPCA, which would not dream of blowing it on one animal.

--As Indifferent to Cats as They Are to People

Dear As,

You make some valid points, though Prudie detects dogist sentiments in your saying one might understandably lay out two big ones for a dog, but not for a cat. You are fortunate in not having a column of your own, since the dog favoritism would surely invite much correspondence from the cat people. But do read on.

Dear Prudence,

From the time our cat Chappaquiddick (don't ask) was 19 until she died at 20 or 21, we took her to the vet twice a week for dialysis. This wonderful, magical cat raised all four of our sons (with some help from my wife, but not much in my judgment), and she became as much a part of the family as any of us. Because of kidney problems she had accidents from time to time, but we always overlooked them. "ZM" performed a saintly act in the eyes of anyone lucky enough to ever share space with man's noblest companion.

--C.K.