Re: Keeping cat on patio [Archive]

Bob Brenchley.

July 26th 03, 02:55 PM

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:10:20 -0700, "Mogie"
> wrote:

>Bob Brenchley. > wrote in message
...
>> On 13 Jul 2003 06:19:46 -0700, (Nightstar)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi - I live in a condo with a fenced patio. The fence is approx. 6
>> >ft. tall and made of wood. I want to be able to allow my cat, Pop, to
>> >go outside on the patio but he can climb over the fence. Someone
>> >suggested attaching "chicken wire" to the fence so it extends 8 inches
>> >above the top of the fence. Supposedly when the cat tries to jump to
>> >the top of the fence the flimsy chicken wire will not hold the weight
>> >of the cat and he will not be able to go over the fence. Has anyone
>> >heard of this or tried it? Does anyone have any other suggestions?
>> >
>> >Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Cats are NOT cage animals. If you live in an area where, for whatever
>> reason, you feel unable to allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for
>> at least some time each day (and only you can judge your area) then
>> don't have a cat. To have a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in
>> 24/7 marks you are being cruel, selfish, or both.
>>
Moronic posting style corrected. You have not been charged for this
service but I reserve the right to charge in the future if you make
the same mistake again.

>Keeping a cat indoors or restricting their access outside is not cruel
>anymore then restricting a young child's access outside is cruel. Cats and
>young children both need to be protected from possible forces that might be
>of harm to them. Someone who allows their children to roam freely usually
>end up with dead or missing children and have them taken away.
>

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.

The FACT is that none of the UK's major shelters, nor most of the
smaller ones that for various reasons affiliate with the big boys,
will normally rehome a healthy cat to an indoor only environment. This
has been confirmed on numerous occasions by people who work at the
grass roots level - actually finding homes for cats.

Cats are NOT children an should not be treated as such. But believe
me, if you constantly kept your child indoors only you would be the
one looking at having it taken away.

--
Bob.

Your IQ score is 2 (it takes 3 to grunt).

bewtifulfreak

July 27th 03, 09:18 PM

As I've mentioned on alt.cats, I think it's important to do what you can to
make sure your cat has as much outside access as safely possible (whether in
a run, on a harness, or whatever), and I'd want to give my cats as much
opportunity to roam as possible. But I've had both indoor and outdoor cats,
and I don't think having a cat who's completely indoors is necessarily cruel
or selfish, particularly if the owner does their best to keep the cat
occupied, give it things to climb on, and what have you. Like I said in the
other group, there are a lot of strays in cities, and to say they're better
off on the streets where they could catch anything, get hit by cars, shot,
or whatever else, than indoors well-fed and cared for, with lots of toys and
attention, well, I don't think that's cruel. Yes, cats are generally
outdoor animals. But they've become domesticated, and can't fend for
themselves against certain dangers; even the well-defended tiger is being
threatened by humankind. Yes, you should always do what you can to provide
the opportunity for a cat to roam safely. But safety is the issue first and
foremost, and I think giving a cat a loving home when needed, even in an
area where it would be unsafe to let it roam, is anything but selfish. I
realize how strongly you feel about this, so I'm sure you'll disagree, but
having had cats who ended up with diseases, being shot, bitten, and other
problems, I feel it's just as cruel to let a cat roam in a dangerous area as
it is to keep one indoors that doesn't want to be. And again, to say you
just shouldn't own one in areas like that when there are so many that need
looking after just doesn't seem any less heartless to me. I honestly think
it depends on the personality of the cat, and the individual situation. As
I wrote to someone with the same opinion in alt.cats: "I really do see your
point, and I think it's a good one. I think we both agree that the welfare
and happiness of the cat has to come first. And if your cat is truly
miserable indoors, then it's up to you to find ways to keep him or her
occupied. And ideally, if you live in a area that's unsafe for free
roaming, you'd either do something like the outdoor run, or teach kitty to
walk on a harness and make sure he or she gets plenty of supervised outdoor
time to keep them happy. The thing is, if you truly love your cat, you'll
realize these things and do whatever it takes to see that they stay happy.
If you really are a cruel and unkind person, then nothing you or I say would
convince anyone of anything anyway."

Agreeing to Disagree,
Ann

bewtifulfreak

July 27th 03, 09:30 PM

"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...

> I do not let young kittens roam, but like children they grow and
> develop a life of their own. By the time a cat is adult I would
> certainly not put any restrictions on its movements, just as I would
> not expect to restrict my children now they are grown.

There are some parallels to cat and child rearing, but unlike with grown
children, you can't teach cats street safety or stranger danger, and make
them aware of all the risks of an outdoor life in the city. I get the
impression from your posts that you believe that domestic cats should be
treated relative to their wild cousins, and to some extent, as with the
feeding, I can certainly see your point. But wild cats, unlike their
domestic brethren, generally don't have to face the dangers of a city or
other highly populated area. And it's just not realistic to say people in
those areas shouldn't own cats, because as I said, there are far too many
cats in those areas in need of a good home.

Ann

Mogie

July 28th 03, 06:28 PM

Restricting outside access is not cruel. When children are outside (young
children) keep an eye on them. Same for cats they need to be protected. Bob
do you let young children roam?

Bob Brenchley. > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:10:20 -0700, "Mogie"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Bob Brenchley. > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 13 Jul 2003 06:19:46 -0700, (Nightstar)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi - I live in a condo with a fenced patio. The fence is approx. 6
> >> >ft. tall and made of wood. I want to be able to allow my cat, Pop, to
> >> >go outside on the patio but he can climb over the fence. Someone
> >> >suggested attaching "chicken wire" to the fence so it extends 8 inches
> >> >above the top of the fence. Supposedly when the cat tries to jump to
> >> >the top of the fence the flimsy chicken wire will not hold the weight
> >> >of the cat and he will not be able to go over the fence. Has anyone
> >> >heard of this or tried it? Does anyone have any other suggestions?
> >> >
> >> >Thanks in advance!
> >>
> >> Cats are NOT cage animals. If you live in an area where, for whatever
> >> reason, you feel unable to allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for
> >> at least some time each day (and only you can judge your area) then
> >> don't have a cat. To have a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in
> >> 24/7 marks you are being cruel, selfish, or both.
> >>
> Moronic posting style corrected. You have not been charged for this
> service but I reserve the right to charge in the future if you make
> the same mistake again.
>
> >Keeping a cat indoors or restricting their access outside is not cruel
> >anymore then restricting a young child's access outside is cruel. Cats
and
> >young children both need to be protected from possible forces that might
be
> >of harm to them. Someone who allows their children to roam freely usually
> >end up with dead or missing children and have them taken away.
> >
>
> If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
> allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
> day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
> a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
> cruel, selfish, or both.
>
> The FACT is that none of the UK's major shelters, nor most of the
> smaller ones that for various reasons affiliate with the big boys,
> will normally rehome a healthy cat to an indoor only environment. This
> has been confirmed on numerous occasions by people who work at the
> grass roots level - actually finding homes for cats.
>
> Cats are NOT children an should not be treated as such. But believe
> me, if you constantly kept your child indoors only you would be the
> one looking at having it taken away.
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> Your IQ score is 2 (it takes 3 to grunt).

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[email protected]

July 29th 03, 06:36 AM

In article >,
Bob Brenchley. > wrote:

>Cats are NOT cage animals. If you live in an area where, for whatever
>reason, you feel unable to allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for
>at least some time each day (and only you can judge your area) then
>don't have a cat. To have a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in
>24/7 marks you are being cruel, selfish, or both.

I'm new to rec.pets.cats and a new cat owner. I was surprised by this
vehement claim. Is this just your personal opinion, or are you an expert
such as a vet? What organisations or studies support your claim?

I obtained my two cats from the Cat Protection Society of NSW, who run a
no-kill shelter in Newtown, Sydney. The CPS included with their paperwork
a fact sheet called "Cats Living Indoors" which states, "More and more
people are keeping their cats indoors because they realise that there are
benefits not just for cats and themselves, but also for the environment.
Cats can live indoors very happily but it's vital... to make the cat's
environment as interesting and fun as possible."

The fact sheet goes on to outline outdoor hazards for cats, including
traffic, other animals, disease, parasites, and poisoning. It explains how
to "help your cat become a contented indoor cat" through desexing and
cleanliness and providing a secure place to hide, toys, greens, a play
centre, high spots to sit, and so on. They suggest having two cats to
entertain each other while the owner's at work.

I don't speak for the CPS, but it's obviously their view that not only is
keeping a cat indoors safer, it's certainly not cruel as long as it's done
with appropriate care.

Rather than letting them roam freely, my plan is to take my two boys out
with a harness and leash, so they can have a good sniff round the
backyard; this has worked very well for my brother and sisters' kittens.
Eventually I hope to get the boys a cat enclosure so they can play
unsupervised. I've known too many cats who were allowed to "roam" and
never came home.

Kate Orman > http://www.zip.com.au/~korman/
"I have no idea what that meant." - Dot Warner

L. Kelly

July 29th 03, 02:16 PM

> wrote in message ...
| In article >,
| Bob Brenchley. > wrote:
|
| >Cats are NOT cage animals. If you live in an area where, for whatever
| >reason, you feel unable to allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for
| >at least some time each day (and only you can judge your area) then
| >don't have a cat. To have a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in
| >24/7 marks you are being cruel, selfish, or both.
|
| I'm new to rec.pets.cats and a new cat owner. I was surprised by this
| vehement claim. Is this just your personal opinion, or are you an expert
| such as a vet? What organisations or studies support your claim?
|
| Kate Orman > http://www.zip.com.au/~korman/
| "I have no idea what that meant." - Dot Warner

Hi Kate,

Don't be too surprised or upset by anything that Bob writes. He has been here for years
and has always written the same garbage. He has them saved so he doesn't have to rewrite
his rubbish every time he wants to say the same thing. Killfile him like everyone else
has.

There is nothing at all wrong with keeping cats strictly indoors. I have always done that
and my cats live to ripe old ages and die very happy kitties. They are well loved and
cared for. What they are not is a nuisance to my neighbours.

You do what you think is best for your kitties and don't consider other people's opinions
too much. As long as your cats are loved, cared for and happy, that's all that matters.
--
Hugs,
Lynn

*strip CLOTHES to reply*
Homepage: http://members.shaw.ca/sewfinefashions/
See my boys: http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/papavince_29/

*~*SooZy*~*

July 29th 03, 02:23 PM

"L. Kelly" > wrote in message
. ca...
> Hi Kate,
>
> Don't be too surprised or upset by anything that Bob writes. He has been
here for years
> and has always written the same garbage. He has them saved so he doesn't
have to rewrite
> his rubbish every time he wants to say the same thing. Killfile him like
everyone else
> has.
>
> There is nothing at all wrong with keeping cats strictly indoors. I have
always done that
> and my cats live to ripe old ages and die very happy kitties. They are
well loved and
> cared for. What they are not is a nuisance to my neighbours.
>
> You do what you think is best for your kitties and don't consider other
people's opinions
> too much. As long as your cats are loved, cared for and happy, that's all
that matters.
> --
> Hugs,
> Lynn

well said Lynn :-)

bewtifulfreak

July 29th 03, 09:50 PM

"Mogie" > wrote in message
...
> I learned a little while ago to ignore Bob. His lights are on but nobody
is
> home.

He certainly sounds intelligent enough, but when he makes blanket statements
like, "People who keep indoor cats are selfish or cruel," when many people
with indoor cats are completely devoted to their pets (I agree that cats are
naturally outdoor creatures, but am open-minded enough to accept that there
are circumstances in which it's better to keep them indoors, and can be done
to the cat's satisfaction), "People only have problems with lactose
intolerance when they haven't had milk in awhile," (what about the fact that
we, like cats, don't have the proper digestive enzymes for cow's milk?), or
"The only threat to wild cats from humans is the depletion of their
habitat," (how about hunting?), it's hard to take anything the man says
seriously, because he's clearly too enamoured of his own intelligence to
consider that anyone else might have any opinions or knowledge of value.

Ann

Mogie

July 30th 03, 06:11 PM

I learned a little while ago to ignore Bob. His lights are on but nobody is
home.

*~*SooZy*~* > wrote in message
...
> "L. Kelly" > wrote in message
> . ca...
> > Hi Kate,
> >
> > Don't be too surprised or upset by anything that Bob writes. He has been
> here for years
> > and has always written the same garbage. He has them saved so he doesn't
> have to rewrite
> > his rubbish every time he wants to say the same thing. Killfile him like
> everyone else
> > has.
> >
> > There is nothing at all wrong with keeping cats strictly indoors. I have
> always done that
> > and my cats live to ripe old ages and die very happy kitties. They are
> well loved and
> > cared for. What they are not is a nuisance to my neighbours.
> >
> > You do what you think is best for your kitties and don't consider other
> people's opinions
> > too much. As long as your cats are loved, cared for and happy, that's
all
> that matters.
> > --
> > Hugs,
> > Lynn
>
> well said Lynn :-)
>
>

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Bob Brenchley.

July 31st 03, 09:57 AM

On 29 Jul 2003 15:36:41 +1000, wrote:

>In article >,
>Bob Brenchley. > wrote:
>
>>Cats are NOT cage animals. If you live in an area where, for whatever
>>reason, you feel unable to allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for
>>at least some time each day (and only you can judge your area) then
>>don't have a cat. To have a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in
>>24/7 marks you are being cruel, selfish, or both.
>
>I'm new to rec.pets.cats and a new cat owner. I was surprised by this
>vehement claim. Is this just your personal opinion, or are you an expert
>such as a vet? What organisations or studies support your claim?

I'm a cat person of over 40 years standing.
>
>I obtained my two cats from the Cat Protection Society of NSW, who run a
>no-kill shelter in Newtown, Sydney. The CPS included with their paperwork
>a fact sheet called "Cats Living Indoors" which states, "More and more
>people are keeping their cats indoors because they realise that there are
>benefits not just for cats and themselves, but also for the environment.
>Cats can live indoors very happily but it's vital... to make the cat's
>environment as interesting and fun as possible."

In some areas of Australia cats do present some danger to local
wildlife. In those areas people should be encouraged not to keep cats.
There are no valid reasons for encouraging people to keep healthy cats
indoors 24/7.
>
>The fact sheet goes on to outline outdoor hazards for cats, including
>traffic, other animals, disease, parasites, and poisoning. It explains how
>to "help your cat become a contented indoor cat" through desexing and
>cleanliness and providing a secure place to hide, toys, greens, a play
>centre, high spots to sit, and so on. They suggest having two cats to
>entertain each other while the owner's at work.
>
>I don't speak for the CPS, but it's obviously their view that not only is
>keeping a cat indoors safer, it's certainly not cruel as long as it's done
>with appropriate care.

The problem is that without long training as an animal keeper it is
impossible to give that "appropriate care".
>
>Rather than letting them roam freely, my plan is to take my two boys out
>with a harness and leash,

Cats are NOT dogs, don't try to ill-treat them by treating them like
dogs.

>so they can have a good sniff round the
>backyard; this has worked very well for my brother and sisters' kittens.
>Eventually I hope to get the boys a cat enclosure so they can play
>unsupervised. I've known too many cats who were allowed to "roam" and
>never came home.

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.
>
--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.

Bob Brenchley.

July 31st 03, 10:08 AM

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:50:53 +0100, "bewtifulfreak"
> wrote:

>"Mogie" > wrote in message
...
>> I learned a little while ago to ignore Bob. His lights are on but nobody
>is
>> home.
>
>He certainly sounds intelligent enough, but when he makes blanket statements
>like, "People who keep indoor cats are selfish or cruel," when many people
>with indoor cats are completely devoted to their pets (I agree that cats are
>naturally outdoor creatures, but am open-minded enough to accept that there
>are circumstances in which it's better to keep them indoors,

There are, indeed, a few. There are some cats where health problems or
disability means that they have to be kept indoors. I know one cat
that has less than 10% vision who is normally kept indoors because her
owner lives near a main road, but even she gets to roam freely at
least once a week when he takes her over to his sister's house which
has large fields at the back.

> and can be done
>to the cat's satisfaction), "People only have problems with lactose
>intolerance when they haven't had milk in awhile," (what about the fact that
>we, like cats, don't have the proper digestive enzymes for cow's milk?),

Our digestive system is not perfect for any one food. Enzymes for
dealing with cows milk are in our bodies and our environment, but if
we do not drink milk for long periods then they die down to a low
level. Start having milk in very small amount, gradually taking more,
and most people have no problem at all.

In the UK most people continue drinking milk, if only in tea or on
cereals, throughout their lives. In countries where milk does not form
part of the usual diet you will see far more lactose intolerance.

> or
>"The only threat to wild cats from humans is the depletion of their
>habitat," (how about hunting?),

There is VERY little hunting of wild cats.

>it's hard to take anything the man says
>seriously, because he's clearly too enamoured of his own intelligence to
>consider that anyone else might have any opinions or knowledge of value.

All I can give are the facts.
>
>Ann
>
--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.

Bob Brenchley.

July 31st 03, 10:13 AM

On 30 Jul 2003 13:55:06 +1000, wrote:

>Ah... I did wonder if that might be the case. Thanks for the advice,
>folks. (Coincidentally, I'm lactose intolerant due to an illness - until
>which event I was a guzzler of all dairy products :-).
>
My sister-in-law was the same. She overcame it by drinking small
amounts of unpasteurized milk for a couple of months, this rebuilt he
lactose processing enzymes.

--
Bob.

Accomplishing the impossible only means the boss will add it to your
regular duties.

L. Kelly

July 31st 03, 02:38 PM

"Moron Brenchley." > stupidly and without forethought
wrote in message ...
| >|
| >| >Cats are NOT cage animals. If you live in an area where, for whatever
| >| >reason, you feel unable to allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for
| >| >at least some time each day (and only you can judge your area) then
| >| >don't have a cat. To have a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in
| >| >24/7 marks you are being cruel, selfish, or both.
| >|
| >| I'm new to rec.pets.cats and a new cat owner. I was surprised by this
| >| vehement claim. Is this just your personal opinion, or are you an expert
| >| such as a vet? What organisations or studies support your claim?
| >|
| >| Kate Orman > http://www.zip.com.au/~korman/
| >| "I have no idea what that meant." - Dot Warner
| >
| >Hi Kate,
| >
| >Don't be too surprised or upset by anything that Bob writes. He has been here for
years
| >and has always written the same garbage. He has them saved so he doesn't have to
rewrite
| >his rubbish every time he wants to say the same thing. Killfile him like everyone else
| >has.
| >
| >There is nothing at all wrong with keeping cats strictly indoors. I have always done
that
| >and my cats live to ripe old ages and die very happy kitties. They are well loved and
| >cared for. What they are not is a nuisance to my neighbours.
| >
| >You do what you think is best for your kitties and don't consider other people's
opinions
| >too much. As long as your cats are loved, cared for and happy, that's all that
matters.
|
| Funny how that cat abusers like myself always come out of the wordwork at times
| like this.
|
| --
| Bob.
|
| My IQ score is 2 (it takes 3 to know when I need to go to the bathroom).

If you find the 3 IQ point, Bob, then go and spew your rubbish in the toilet where it
belongs.

I live on a highway, with over 10,000 vehicles a day going through, absolutely no yard,
and near a rural area full of coyotes and wild dogs (one of which I have seen near my
home). If protecting my cats from those dangers makes me "cruel, selfish, or both" (to
quote your words), then I guess I would have to say that you are the one who is abusive.

Anyone who WOULD subject their so-called "loved pets" to these dangers is, indeed,
extremely cruel, selfish, stupid and abusive.

You have made it very obvious to all here that you have no love for your animals at all,
so please keep your mental garbage from spilling over into everyone's inbox.

L. Kelly

August 1st 03, 04:36 AM

"bewtifulfreak" > wrote in message
...
|
| Ah, but Bob believes that you just shouldn't have a cat if you live in an
| area like that. And as far as strays in those areas? I guess we're
| supposed to accept that a feral life full of disease, fighting and possibly
| starving or being eaten is a more 'natural' life for a cat, and therefore it
| will somehow be happier than if it were being kept indoors, fed, played
| with, and tended to. Myself, I find that awfully difficult to accept. I so
| wish the cats could have a (verbal) say in all this!!!
|
| Ann
| (who does let her cats outdoors, but only because it's safe to do so)
|
|

The one cat that I have is now over 8 years old. I moved here in March. Does my moving
here mean that I'm supposed to "disown" or "abandon" my cat to a new slave???????.....and
just to please a self-serving ass like Bob?!?!? :-O I could never!!!!!!
--
Lynn

DeAnna

August 1st 03, 05:17 AM

> If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
> allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
> day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
> a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
> cruel, selfish, or both.
> >

Sir-

Where do you live?

You don't have any cat haters for neighbors? Or perhaps you don't *know* you do? You know,
the ones who are nice to your face, but secretly put antifreeze in a dish next to the
garbage can that your cat rummages in, because he is throwing trash across their patio? Or
the one who shoots the cat with a pellet gun, because the cat digs up his garden? Or the
person who just hates cats because they are 'cats' and knowing swerves to HIT instead of
swerving to miss, as kitty crosses the road? Are you aware that cats are the most
frequently tortured of all domestic animals?

So there is no traffic where you live? No cases of feline AIDS? No fleas or mosquitoes
carrying worms or other blood-borne disease or parasite?

Let me know where this Cat Utopia exists, because I'd love to live there.

The feral we just took in, was because the neighbors (on whose destructive dog I had
complained to Animal Control) were threatening to harm the cat, because (and I must say
unfairly) they couldn't just CALL animal control, as there is currently no law forbidding
cats to roam and destroy, but there is a law prohibiting DOGS from doing so. It wasn't
even our cat, but looked similar to our cat, so they 'assumed' it belonged to us and
threatened harm if we didn't 'keep it from bothering their dog'. Call me an 'abuser' all
you like. This baby isn't going any where near the outdoors. I prefer to call myself a
'responsible' pet owner. I am responsible for the behaviour of my kitties, as well as my
dog, and NONE of them are allowed off the property. They can go outside on leashes, or
attended if they obey me and stay in the yard (as my "son" did). They will soon have an
area that is 'enclosed' keeping them safely away from any predators, especially the humans
predators, of the ignorant and violent persuasion, yet allowing them access to the grass,
and sights and smells of outdoors.

I am not going to turn this little darling outside, to find her headless body on my
doorstep as part of some nasty neighbor feud, simply because I wouldn't allow their dog to
live at my house, eating my shoes and chewing up my garden hose.

One bad thing about domestication. We teach animals to trust humans. Sometimes I think
that is ultimately a bad thing. :( Like I tried to explain to a friend about rehabbing
wild creatures. You must not imprint them too much, because that fear and mistrust of
humans may save their lives. Not all humans are kind and good.

Sorry, I have to go "abuse" my babies, it is time for their nightly snack of cream and/or
tuna, and they have all taken turn to come remind me. :) They certainly have me very
well trained.

D.

PS-The door was opened to let the dog 'do her business' for the night. All of the cats ran
in the opposite direction as I held open the door, though I made no effort to stop them
going onto the porch. The dog went out long enough to accomplish what she had to, then
promptly sat at the door until I opened the screen for her to come in. I am thinking
they'd all rather be in this comfy A/C, lounging on comfy furniture, and licking the tuna
from their chins, than 'roaming'......

[email protected]

August 1st 03, 08:08 AM

In article >,
Bob Brenchley. > wrote:
>On 29 Jul 2003 15:36:41 +1000, wrote:

>>>Cats are NOT cage animals. If you live in an area where, for whatever
>>>reason, you feel unable to allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for
>>>at least some time each day (and only you can judge your area) then
>>>don't have a cat. To have a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in
>>>24/7 marks you are being cruel, selfish, or both.

>>I'm new to rec.pets.cats and a new cat owner. I was surprised by this
>>vehement claim. Is this just your personal opinion, or are you an expert
>>such as a vet? What organisations or studies support your claim?
>
>I'm a cat person of over 40 years standing.

Don't your feet hurt?

Took Frank for his first spacewalk today. My suspicion that the big chunky
guy is, in fact, a dog were increased when the only harness that would fit
him was a small dog harness. He was very good and patient about the
harness, and excited to be outside; he was a bit puzzled that I was always
two feet behind him. :-) It was all a bit much after five minutes, so he
hastened back indoors. Interestingly, I think he was tracking himself; a
few nights ago he made an unauthorised exit by knocking out a flyscreen,
only to come straight back to the front door and meow until he woke us up.
He knows where his food bowl is. :-) Anyway, further harness practice and
outdoor adventures to come.

Kate Orman > http://www.zip.com.au/~korman/
"I have no idea what that meant." - Dot Warner

Bob Brenchley.

August 1st 03, 05:27 PM

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:38:18 GMT, "L. Kelly"
> wrote:

>If you find the 3 IQ point, Bob, then go and spew your rubbish in the toilet where it
>belongs.
>
>I live on a highway, with over 10,000 vehicles a day going through, absolutely no yard,
>and near a rural area full of coyotes and wild dogs (one of which I have seen near my
>home). If protecting my cats from those dangers makes me "cruel, selfish, or both" (to
>quote your words), then I guess I would have to say that you are the one who is abusive.

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.
>
>Anyone who WOULD subject their so-called "loved pets" to these dangers is, indeed,
>extremely cruel, selfish, stupid and abusive.
>
>You have made it very obvious to all here that you have no love for your animals at all,
>so please keep your mental garbage from spilling over into everyone's inbox.

--
Bob.

Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.

Bob Brenchley.

August 1st 03, 05:27 PM

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:42:18 +0100, "bewtifulfreak"
> wrote:

>"L. Kelly" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
>> I live on a highway, with over 10,000 vehicles a day going through,
>absolutely no yard,
>> and near a rural area full of coyotes and wild dogs (one of which I have
>seen near my
>> home). If protecting my cats from those dangers makes me "cruel, selfish,
>or both" (to
>> quote your words), then I guess I would have to say that you are the one
>who is abusive.
>>
>> Anyone who WOULD subject their so-called "loved pets" to these dangers is,
>indeed,
>> extremely cruel, selfish, stupid and abusive.
>
>Ah, but Bob believes that you just shouldn't have a cat if you live in an
>area like that.

I believe she shouldn't have a cat, most true cat lovers would agree.

> And as far as strays in those areas? I guess we're
>supposed to accept that a feral life full of disease, fighting and possibly
>starving or being eaten is a more 'natural' life for a cat, and therefore it
>will somehow be happier than if it were being kept indoors, fed, played
>with, and tended to. Myself, I find that awfully difficult to accept. I so
>wish the cats could have a (verbal) say in all this!!!
>
>Ann
>(who does let her cats outdoors, but only because it's safe to do so)

You have a choice. Have a cat who is allowed out for at least some
time during the average day, or don't have a cat. It really is as
simple as that.

--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.

Bob Brenchley.

August 2nd 03, 04:34 PM

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:17:21 -0500, "DeAnna"
> wrote:

>> If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
>> allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
>> day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
>> a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
>> cruel, selfish, or both.
>> >
>
>Sir-
>
>Where do you live?
>
>You don't have any cat haters for neighbors?

No. There may be the odd one who doesn't like cats very much, but that
would make them odd now wouldn't it?

>Or perhaps you don't *know* you do? You know,
>the ones who are nice to your face, but secretly put antifreeze in a dish next to the
>garbage can that your cat rummages in, because he is throwing trash across their patio?

You have some strange garbage cans if a cat can do that.

Also, all antifreeze produced in the EU is "pet safe".

> Or
>the one who shoots the cat with a pellet gun,

Heard of that happening - guy got a very heavy fine and was soon
forced to move as a result of the hate campaign he earnt himself.

> because the cat digs up his garden? Or the
>person who just hates cats because they are 'cats' and knowing swerves to HIT instead of
>swerving to miss, as kitty crosses the road?

Sure, and then he gets done for hitting the parked cars :)

> Are you aware that cats are the most
>frequently tortured of all domestic animals?

Nope. Are you aware how infrequent any animal torture really is?
>
>So there is no traffic where you live?

Lots.

>No cases of feline AIDS?

Not many.

>No fleas

Lots of those, but then humans bring them indoors on their clothes as
well.

>or mosquitoes

Nope.
>carrying worms or other blood-borne disease or parasite?
>
>Let me know where this Cat Utopia exists, because I'd love to live there.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
>
>The feral we just took in, was because the neighbors (on whose destructive dog I had
>complained to Animal Control) were threatening to harm the cat,

Something I would have reported to the police.

> because (and I must say
>unfairly) they couldn't just CALL animal control, as there is currently no law forbidding
>cats to roam and destroy, but there is a law prohibiting DOGS from doing so.

That is how it should be. Cats represent no danger to humans - dogs
do.

>It wasn't
>even our cat, but looked similar to our cat, so they 'assumed' it belonged to us and
>threatened harm if we didn't 'keep it from bothering their dog'.

As I said, such threats would be reported to the police.

>Call me an 'abuser' all
>you like. This baby isn't going any where near the outdoors.

The you are not just an abuser - but a very sick one.

> I prefer to call myself a
>'responsible' pet owner.

You would, but your lack of understanding of a cats needs makes your
an appallingly bad cat owner.

>I am responsible for the behaviour of my kitties, as well as my
>dog, and NONE of them are allowed off the property. They can go outside on leashes, or
>attended if they obey me and stay in the yard (as my "son" did). They will soon have an
>area that is 'enclosed' keeping them safely away from any predators, especially the humans
>predators, of the ignorant and violent persuasion, yet allowing them access to the grass,
>and sights and smells of outdoors.

Your animal abusing sickness seems to be very deep rooted. Maybe you
should seek treatment for your mental problems.
>
>I am not going to turn this little darling outside, to find her headless body on my
>doorstep as part of some nasty neighbor feud, simply because I wouldn't allow their dog to
>live at my house, eating my shoes and chewing up my garden hose.
>
>One bad thing about domestication. We teach animals to trust humans. Sometimes I think
>that is ultimately a bad thing. :( Like I tried to explain to a friend about rehabbing
>wild creatures. You must not imprint them too much, because that fear and mistrust of
>humans may save their lives. Not all humans are kind and good.
>
>Sorry, I have to go "abuse" my babies, it is time for their nightly snack of cream and/or
>tuna, and they have all taken turn to come remind me. :) They certainly have me very
>well trained.

You really are sick.
>
>D.
>
>PS-The door was opened to let the dog 'do her business' for the night. All of the cats ran
>in the opposite direction as I held open the door, though I made no effort to stop them
>going onto the porch. The dog went out long enough to accomplish what she had to, then
>promptly sat at the door until I opened the screen for her to come in. I am thinking
>they'd all rather be in this comfy A/C, lounging on comfy furniture, and licking the tuna
>from their chins, than 'roaming'......
>
--
Bob.

Alas, your intelligence qualifies you more for the primordial soup
than for the "master race." Recognize your limitations. Then shut
up.

bewtifulfreak

August 2nd 03, 06:09 PM

"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...

> You have some strange garbage cans if a cat can do that.
>
> Also, all antifreeze produced in the EU is "pet safe".

Not everyone in this group lives in the EU, Bob.

> > Or
> >the one who shoots the cat with a pellet gun,
>
> Heard of that happening - guy got a very heavy fine and was soon
> forced to move as a result of the hate campaign he earnt himself.

Our cat was shot by a pellet gun, and ultimately had to be put to sleep. We
have no idea who did it, so (s)he gets away with it scot-free, while the cat
is now dead. We reported it to the police, for all the good it did; our cat
was considered 'property', not a living thing. And I *do* live in UK.

> >The feral we just took in, was because the neighbors (on whose
destructive dog I had
> >complained to Animal Control) were threatening to harm the cat,
>
> Something I would have reported to the police.

Police generally say they can't do anything about someone who is threatening
*you* unless they do something, so I don't think they'd do a whole lot about
someone threatening your cat until it was too late.

> > because (and I must say
> >unfairly) they couldn't just CALL animal control, as there is currently
no law forbidding
> >cats to roam and destroy, but there is a law prohibiting DOGS from doing
so.
>
> That is how it should be. Cats represent no danger to humans - dogs
> do.

No, but cats can do damage to property or gardens, not to mention birds, and
thus, many people are very resentful of free-roaming cats either for the
damage to their garden or because they're bird lovers or both, and some will
actually go to great lengths to keep cats out of their yards, including
doing things to harm the cat.

> >It wasn't
> >even our cat, but looked similar to our cat, so they 'assumed' it
belonged to us and
> >threatened harm if we didn't 'keep it from bothering their dog'.
>
> As I said, such threats would be reported to the police.

And as I said, to no result whatsoever.

> > I prefer to call myself a
> >'responsible' pet owner.
>
> You would, but your lack of understanding of a cats needs makes your
> an appallingly bad cat owner.

You say all true cat lovers and animal societies feel the way you do, but
any research on the 'Net or with various animal societies will prove that
there are many others who support the completely opposite view. You may
feel they're wrong, but a great many people feel you're wrong as well.

> >One bad thing about domestication. We teach animals to trust humans.
Sometimes I think
> >that is ultimately a bad thing. :( Like I tried to explain to a friend
about rehabbing
> >wild creatures. You must not imprint them too much, because that fear and
mistrust of
> >humans may save their lives. Not all humans are kind and good.

This is true. Bob says cats are only domesticated in that we've gotten them
to live with us, but the fact is, they've lost many of their natural
protections and instincts, and cannot be treated like true wild cats.
Despite how little Bob says it happens, wild cats are becoming extinct not
only because we're encroaching on their habitat, but, because this is
happening, they are coming into human habitats for food, and thus, being
shot. If this is happening to big wild cats, what hope do small domestic
cats have in protecting themselves against the dangers of city life? It's
all well and good to address life in the EU, particularly in UK, but many
people in this group are from cities in the US, and could well chose not to
own cats, but there would then be that many more feral cats living a not
very satisfying life in the outdoors, of sickness, attacks, and possibly
death, either by people wanting to rid themselves of the population (see
Kaeli's site for a tragic story about an entire feral population wiped out
by some idiot(s) with a 22.), or by cars, or some other horrible accident
befalling them. You're well entitled to your opinion, Bob, but that opinion
doesn't give you the right to make personal attacks on this newsgroup. I'm
sure that most of the indoor cats owned by people here, even if not as happy
as you believe they could be, are not suffering unduly; indoor owners may be
'sick' in your opinion, but are not blind, and would be able to see if their
cat was sulking around unhappily. And I truly believe that anyone on this
group who saw their cat in that state *would*, indeed, find another home for
it.

I know I'm wasting my breath, because you will probably just cut and paste
your pat line in response, or contradict everything I've said, but I just
felt the need to have my say. I won't continue banging my head against this
brick wall much longer, though, because that kind of behavior truly *is*
sick....

Ann

bewtifulfreak

August 2nd 03, 07:07 PM

One last point on the indoor-outdoor debate: there aren't enough homes for
stray cats as it is, so if you eliminate cat lovers who live in certain
areas from having cats, there will just be that many more cats wandering
homeless, and ill-equipped for it. I believe a cat suffers far more living
a feral life than it does living an indoor life with a loving
caretaker-companion, though, again, I realize you, Bob, will disagree.

Ann

bewtifulfreak

August 2nd 03, 07:08 PM

One last point on the indoor-outdoor debate: there aren't enough homes for
all the stray cats as it is, so if you eliminate cat lovers who live in
certain areas from having cats, there will just be that many more cats
wandering homeless, and ill-equipped for it. I believe a cat suffers far
more living a feral life than it does living an indoor life with a loving
caretaker-companion, though, again, I realize you, Bob, will disagree.

Ann

bewtifulfreak

August 2nd 03, 07:08 PM

bewtifulfreak

August 2nd 03, 07:33 PM

Okay, make that *two* last points (darn computer!)....oh, well, I think it
was a point worth making twice. ;)

"bewtifulfreak" > wrote in message
...
> One last point on the indoor-outdoor debate: there aren't enough homes for
> all the stray cats as it is, so if you eliminate cat lovers who live in
> certain areas from having cats, there will just be that many more cats
> wandering homeless, and ill-equipped for it. I believe a cat suffers far
> more living a feral life than it does living an indoor life with a loving
> caretaker-companion, though, again, I realize you, Bob, will disagree.
>
> Ann

bewtifulfreak

August 2nd 03, 07:42 PM

"bewtifulfreak" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, make that *two* last points (darn computer!)....oh, well, I think it
> was a point worth making twice. ;)

Make that *three*....don't know how many more are going to show up, but I
apologize in advance....if I keep replying to every one, we'll never see the
end of them, LOL!

Ann
(feeling sheepish, and sure to hear from Bob about my "moronic posting
techniques"!) :p

bewtifulfreak

August 2nd 03, 10:07 PM

"Mogie" > wrote in message
...
> I wanted you to know bewtifulfreak that I really appreciate your common
> sense. Trying to carry on a intelligent conversation with Bob is not
> possible. But thanks for trying!

Thank you, Mogie, that means a lot to me. :) I realized that right from the
start, and intend to stop trying. I usually do okay at ignoring people like
that - and plonking him will make it that much easier - but when people
can't disagree without making personal attacks, it just seems to bring out
the avenging angel in me, LOL! But clearly, Bob is not into common sense,
and nothing I can say will stop him making his unmitigated judgements about
the allegedy sickness, selfishness, or cruelty of all you wonderful folks in
the group. Like Dear Abby (or was it Ann Landers?) once said, trying to
reason with an alcoholic is like trying to blow out a lightbulb, and trying
to discuss anything with Bob is exactly the same!

Ann
(resisting the temptation to read what Bob has to say in response to her
last post, and plonking him right now for her own peace of mind)

L. Kelly

August 3rd 03, 06:20 AM

| > I wanted you to know bewtifulfreak that I really appreciate your common
| > sense. Trying to carry on a intelligent conversation with Bob is not
| > possible. But thanks for trying!
|
| Thank you, Mogie, that means a lot to me. :) I realized that right from the
| start, and intend to stop trying. I usually do okay at ignoring people like
| that - and plonking him will make it that much easier - but when people
| can't disagree without making personal attacks, it just seems to bring out
| the avenging angel in me, LOL! But clearly, Bob is not into common sense,
| and nothing I can say will stop him making his unmitigated judgements about
| the allegedy sickness, selfishness, or cruelty of all you wonderful folks in
| the group. Like Dear Abby (or was it Ann Landers?) once said, trying to
| reason with an alcoholic is like trying to blow out a lightbulb, and trying
| to discuss anything with Bob is exactly the same!
|
| Ann

As a further note in trying to reason with Bob.....I read a quote today that I think fits
him perfectly and thought that I would share it will all who are interested.

"How much easier it is to be critical, than to be correct." ... Benjamin Disraeli

In the debate on whether or not to keep a cat strictly indoors, or let it have some
outdoor freedom, there really is no "right" or "wrong." I feel that the cats will let the
slaves know if they are unhappy. As long as the cats are fed, loved, happy and healthy,
the slave should have the right to chose what is "good" for their cat.

In rural areas, with fewer dangers...let your cats have some freedom. In the city,
wrought with every kind of evil you can imagine, use your best judgement...and let your
kitties always be your guides in what that decision is.
--
Hugs,
Lynn

*strip CLOTHES to reply*
Homepage: http://members.shaw.ca/sewfinefashions/
See my boys: http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/papavince_29/

DeAnna

August 3rd 03, 08:29 AM

Mr. Brenchley-

Have you no better manners than to hurl unfounded insults at those who disagree with your
personal opinion? Shame on you.

I do not believe for one moment that you can sit on your self-righteous high horse and
sanctimoniously claim that you have no "cat haters" in the UK or Northern Ireland. You've
folks there that kill other humans for their difference in religious beliefs. And you
expect me to believe that no one becomes enraged over the destruction of their property?
Oft times, it is not a hatred of the animal, but a resentment of the inconsiderate
neighbor who'd let them run amok, defacing things that do not belong to them, that spurs
the retaliatory behaviour, which is then taken out upon the unsuspecting, trusting pet.

It is a matter of personal responsibility, and not only cats, but dogs, and any other pets
or livestock, and even extended to children, that are bound by this code of civility. You
don't break or destroy, or allow to be broken or destroyed, that which you do not own.
Anything less is vandalism, and the owner has every right to want retribution. Some owners
however, take less than legal forms of retribution, and the end victim ends up being the
poor trusting creature.

As for the antifreeze in EU, it is wonderful that you have only the non-toxic form.
However, I am sure you folks have rat poison. That is how Aja, my mother's beloved Persian
died. D-con mixed with canned cat food. The neighbors were upset that the cat used their
prize winning garden as a litter box. As it could not be proved, there was nothing we
could do, and it wouldn't have mattered. The kitty was dead, and no matter of finger
pointing or even criminal conviction would have brought him back.

You say "Not many" cases of Feline Aids? Watch one of your babies waste slowly away,
slowly dying before your helpless hands, and say "How many?" is too many. To me, ONE is
too many. A generic "not many" doesn't cut it. I don't enjoy seeing any animal die in my
arms.

As for the neighbors making threats, you can report 'such threats' to police (I reported
them to animal control when I posted the cat as "found"-here you must post an animal as
found for three days, and when the 'owner' fails to come to the pound looking for them,
they belong to you). However, you can't prosecute someone for what they *might* do. *IF*
they carry through, and *BIG IF* they can *PROVE* they did it, THEN AND ONLY THEN, will
they be held responsible. But is it better to prevent the misdeed, than to attempt to gain
recompense after the fact? Would you allow your child to be murdered so you could
prosecute the guilty party?

If you think animal torture to be infrequent, you must either by someone who doesn't watch
the news, or someone who is delusional. And the frequency is of no matter to the victim's
family. It only takes that once, to drive a stake of pain through their heart. The fact
that it hasn't happened often is of no consolation to those who lost a loved one.

I hope my "deep rooted" "sickness" and "abuse" of protecting and nurturing my animals with
the same care and tenderness that I show my human offspring spreads to every human. I have
had very few cats that ever desired to be outdoors. Even when THEY are given the choice,
they prefer to be indoors. Perhaps they know more than any of us give them credit for.
Those who truly love their animals would literally lay down their lives for them, and
would never intentionally put them in harms way. That includes in the path of a moving
car, an angry neighbor, or a disease infested wild animal, that picks a fight out of the
need to survive. No animal in my care will come to any harm at all, if I can at all help
it. They are all very healthy, happy, and loving, and that speaks volumes more truth, than
any opinion typed in ignorance.

If you truly believe in all that you put in your posts, I feel very sorry for you, and for
the animals in your care. You must be a bitter, miserable person to be so hateful, and
contemptuous in the way you treat other people, and it makes me wonder how that translates
to how you treat those poor creatures who are in your care.

D.

"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:17:21 -0500, "DeAnna"
> > wrote:
>
> >> If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
> >> allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
> >> day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
> >> a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
> >> cruel, selfish, or both.
> >> >
> >
> >Sir-
> >
> >Where do you live?
> >
> >You don't have any cat haters for neighbors?
>
> No. There may be the odd one who doesn't like cats very much, but that
> would make them odd now wouldn't it?
>
> >Or perhaps you don't *know* you do? You know,
> >the ones who are nice to your face, but secretly put antifreeze in a dish next to the
> >garbage can that your cat rummages in, because he is throwing trash across their patio?
>
> You have some strange garbage cans if a cat can do that.
>
> Also, all antifreeze produced in the EU is "pet safe".
>
> > Or
> >the one who shoots the cat with a pellet gun,
>
> Heard of that happening - guy got a very heavy fine and was soon
> forced to move as a result of the hate campaign he earnt himself.
>
> > because the cat digs up his garden? Or the
> >person who just hates cats because they are 'cats' and knowing swerves to HIT instead
of
> >swerving to miss, as kitty crosses the road?
>
> Sure, and then he gets done for hitting the parked cars :)
>
> > Are you aware that cats are the most
> >frequently tortured of all domestic animals?
>
> Nope. Are you aware how infrequent any animal torture really is?
> >
> >So there is no traffic where you live?
>
> Lots.
>
> >No cases of feline AIDS?
>
> Not many.
>
> >No fleas
>
> Lots of those, but then humans bring them indoors on their clothes as
> well.
>
> >or mosquitoes
>
> Nope.
> >carrying worms or other blood-borne disease or parasite?
> >
> >Let me know where this Cat Utopia exists, because I'd love to live there.
>
> The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
> >
> >The feral we just took in, was because the neighbors (on whose destructive dog I had
> >complained to Animal Control) were threatening to harm the cat,
>
> Something I would have reported to the police.
>
> > because (and I must say
> >unfairly) they couldn't just CALL animal control, as there is currently no law
forbidding
> >cats to roam and destroy, but there is a law prohibiting DOGS from doing so.
>
> That is how it should be. Cats represent no danger to humans - dogs
> do.
>
> >It wasn't
> >even our cat, but looked similar to our cat, so they 'assumed' it belonged to us and
> >threatened harm if we didn't 'keep it from bothering their dog'.
>
> As I said, such threats would be reported to the police.
>
> >Call me an 'abuser' all
> >you like. This baby isn't going any where near the outdoors.
>
> The you are not just an abuser - but a very sick one.
>
> > I prefer to call myself a
> >'responsible' pet owner.
>
> You would, but your lack of understanding of a cats needs makes your
> an appallingly bad cat owner.
>
> >I am responsible for the behaviour of my kitties, as well as my
> >dog, and NONE of them are allowed off the property. They can go outside on leashes, or
> >attended if they obey me and stay in the yard (as my "son" did). They will soon have an
> >area that is 'enclosed' keeping them safely away from any predators, especially the
humans
> >predators, of the ignorant and violent persuasion, yet allowing them access to the
grass,
> >and sights and smells of outdoors.
>
> Your animal abusing sickness seems to be very deep rooted. Maybe you
> should seek treatment for your mental problems.
> >
> >I am not going to turn this little darling outside, to find her headless body on my
> >doorstep as part of some nasty neighbor feud, simply because I wouldn't allow their dog
to
> >live at my house, eating my shoes and chewing up my garden hose.
> >
> >One bad thing about domestication. We teach animals to trust humans. Sometimes I think
> >that is ultimately a bad thing. :( Like I tried to explain to a friend about
rehabbing
> >wild creatures. You must not imprint them too much, because that fear and mistrust of
> >humans may save their lives. Not all humans are kind and good.
> >
> >Sorry, I have to go "abuse" my babies, it is time for their nightly snack of cream
and/or
> >tuna, and they have all taken turn to come remind me. :) They certainly have me very
> >well trained.
>
> You really are sick.
> >
> >D.
> >
> >PS-The door was opened to let the dog 'do her business' for the night. All of the cats
ran
> >in the opposite direction as I held open the door, though I made no effort to stop them
> >going onto the porch. The dog went out long enough to accomplish what she had to, then
> >promptly sat at the door until I opened the screen for her to come in. I am thinking
> >they'd all rather be in this comfy A/C, lounging on comfy furniture, and licking the
tuna
> >from their chins, than 'roaming'......
> >
> --
> Bob.
>
> Alas, your intelligence qualifies you more for the primordial soup
> than for the "master race." Recognize your limitations. Then shut
> up.

Hope Munro Smith

August 3rd 03, 03:47 PM

In article >,
Bob Brenchley. > wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 03:36:23 GMT, "L. Kelly"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"bewtifulfreak" > wrote in message
> ...
> >|
> >| Ah, but Bob believes that you just shouldn't have a cat if you live in an
> >| area like that. And as far as strays in those areas? I guess we're
> >| supposed to accept that a feral life full of disease, fighting and
> >| possibly
> >| starving or being eaten is a more 'natural' life for a cat, and therefore
> >| it
> >| will somehow be happier than if it were being kept indoors, fed, played
> >| with, and tended to. Myself, I find that awfully difficult to accept. I
> >| so
> >| wish the cats could have a (verbal) say in all this!!!
> >|
> >| Ann
> >| (who does let her cats outdoors, but only because it's safe to do so)
> >|
> >|
> >
> >
> >The one cat that I have is now over 8 years old. I moved here in March. Does
> >my moving
> >here mean that I'm supposed to "disown" or "abandon" my cat to a new
> >slave???????.
>
> If you are stupid or selfish enough to move to a home unsuitable for
> the cat - yet.
>
> >....and
> >just to please a self-serving ass like Bob?!?!?
>
> What does a donkey have to do with it?
>
> > :-O I could never!!!!!!
>
> I've taken on two cats in the past few years because their owners were
> forced to move to a home unsuitable for a cat. One, Penny, stayed two
> years until her old owners were able to find a home in a safer area.
> The other, Floss, had an owner that was going into residential care, I
> had her for two months while we found someone in the area who was
> happy to take her on. As she was an older cat (9 or 10 if I recall) I
> wanted a home close to where she was used to roaming. I still see her
> every now and again, at 16+ she is still doing well.

A lady who lives in our neighborhood as built a "cat run" -- basically
she has encased her entire backyard in fencing with a sort of fencing
"roof" so that the cats can be outside but can't leave the yard.
It took her *forever* I'm sure, but her cats are completely safe from
cars and predators.

bewtifulfreak

August 3rd 03, 05:06 PM

"L. Kelly" > wrote in message
. ca...

> As a further note in trying to reason with Bob.....I read a quote today
that I think fits
> him perfectly and thought that I would share it will all who are
interested.
>
> "How much easier it is to be critical, than to be correct." ... Benjamin
Disraeli

How very appropriate. :)

> In the debate on whether or not to keep a cat strictly indoors, or let it
have some
> outdoor freedom, there really is no "right" or "wrong." I feel that the
cats will let the
> slaves know if they are unhappy. As long as the cats are fed, loved, happy
and healthy,
> the slave should have the right to chose what is "good" for their cat.
>
> In rural areas, with fewer dangers...let your cats have some freedom. In
the city,
> wrought with every kind of evil you can imagine, use your best
judgement...and let your
> kitties always be your guides in what that decision is.

This reflects my outlook on the issue to a tee, well said. Obviously, if a
cat has been an outdoor cat, and is then rehomed, it should ideally be
rehomed to someplace it can still wander. If a cat is going to be indoor
only, it should really be done right from the get-go (or as soon as
possible, where feral kittens are concerned). That said, there are always
exceptions and individual situations; my Simba used to always sneak out of
my apartment, and now lives with my mom in her apartment complex where cats
are not allowed to wander; he pokes his nose out, but unlike another cat she
had, doesn't run off, but runs right back in! So clearly, he feels safer
and more comfortable indoors, whereas the other cat clearly wanted more
freedom (and even still, was *very* happy and content with my mom, and
shouldn't have been wandering anyway, because he was FLV positive). As you
said, the kitties always have to be your guide. And as I said to Bob, I
know that any one of us, seeing that our cat was clearly bored or unhappy,
would do anything to see that change, even if that meant rehoming it. I
also disagree about leashes and enclosures....I think those are *wonderful*
compromises. A big enough enclosure is much better than a mere cage and
gives a cat access to fresh air, greenery and sunshine, and while you
certainly can't treat a cat on a harness the same as a dog on a leash, it
gives the cat a chance to wander while still being supervised and cared
after.

So, yes, as long as your cats are fed, loved, happy and healthy (and really,
a cat makes it very clear whether it is happy or unhappy), caring for a cat
is like caring for a child: we all have opinions, but it is truly up to each
individual as to how to best care for their companion.

Ann

Bryan S. Slick

August 4th 03, 11:39 AM

[bewtifulfreak]
[Sat, 2 Aug 2003 18:09:56 +0100]

:> You have some strange garbage cans if a cat can do that.
:>
:> Also, all antifreeze produced in the EU is "pet safe".
:
:Not everyone in this group lives in the EU, Bob.

Nor is that statement of his verifiable. While it is true that many
current antifreeze products on the market are "pet safe" (in that they
do not contain a significant amount of ethylene glycol), it's impossible
to state with any accuracy that there are NO EG-containing antifreezes
sold in the entire continent of Europe.

--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."

Bob Brenchley.

August 4th 03, 01:26 PM

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 14:47:42 GMT, Hope Munro Smith >
wrote:

>> I've taken on two cats in the past few years because their owners were
>> forced to move to a home unsuitable for a cat. One, Penny, stayed two
>> years until her old owners were able to find a home in a safer area.
>> The other, Floss, had an owner that was going into residential care, I
>> had her for two months while we found someone in the area who was
>> happy to take her on. As she was an older cat (9 or 10 if I recall) I
>> wanted a home close to where she was used to roaming. I still see her
>> every now and again, at 16+ she is still doing well.
>
>A lady who lives in our neighborhood as built a "cat run" -- basically
>she has encased her entire backyard in fencing with a sort of fencing
>"roof" so that the cats can be outside but can't leave the yard.
>It took her *forever* I'm sure, but her cats are completely safe from
>cars and predators.

Cats are NOT cage animals, however large the cage.

If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
cruel, selfish, or both.

--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.

Bob Brenchley.

August 4th 03, 01:44 PM

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 18:09:56 +0100, "bewtifulfreak"
> wrote:

>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>
>> You have some strange garbage cans if a cat can do that.
>>
>> Also, all antifreeze produced in the EU is "pet safe".
>
>Not everyone in this group lives in the EU, Bob.

So? The fact that all antifreeze made in the EU is pet safe should
tell you something.
>
>
>> > Or
>> >the one who shoots the cat with a pellet gun,
>>
>> Heard of that happening - guy got a very heavy fine and was soon
>> forced to move as a result of the hate campaign he earnt himself.
>
>Our cat was shot by a pellet gun, and ultimately had to be put to sleep. We
>have no idea who did it, so (s)he gets away with it scot-free, while the cat
>is now dead. We reported it to the police, for all the good it did; our cat
>was considered 'property', not a living thing. And I *do* live in UK.

Then you will know that the police take ANY and EVERY firearms offence
very seriously.
>
>
>> >The feral we just took in, was because the neighbors (on whose
>destructive dog I had
>> >complained to Animal Control) were threatening to harm the cat,
>>
>> Something I would have reported to the police.
>
>Police generally say they can't do anything about someone who is threatening
>*you* unless they do something, so I don't think they'd do a whole lot about
>someone threatening your cat until it was too late.

Wrong. Making threats is, in itself, a criminal offence.
>
>
>> > because (and I must say
>> >unfairly) they couldn't just CALL animal control, as there is currently
>no law forbidding
>> >cats to roam and destroy, but there is a law prohibiting DOGS from doing
>so.
>>
>> That is how it should be. Cats represent no danger to humans - dogs
>> do.
>
>No, but cats can do damage to property or gardens,

And if people don't like that then they have to make their gardens
unattractive to cats, not a difficult task.

> not to mention birds, and
>thus, many people are very resentful of free-roaming cats either for the
>damage to their garden or because they're bird lovers or both,

The RSPB do not consider cats a major menace to birds.

> and some will
>actually go to great lengths to keep cats out of their yards, including
>doing things to harm the cat.

There may be a very tiny minority who would harm cats - but that does
no excuse the systematic ill-treatment of cats by keeping them
indoors.
>
>
>> >It wasn't
>> >even our cat, but looked similar to our cat, so they 'assumed' it
>belonged to us and
>> >threatened harm if we didn't 'keep it from bothering their dog'.
>>
>> As I said, such threats would be reported to the police.
>
>And as I said, to no result whatsoever.

Obviously you did not try very hard.
>
>
>> > I prefer to call myself a
>> >'responsible' pet owner.
>>
>> You would, but your lack of understanding of a cats needs makes your
>> an appallingly bad cat owner.
>
>You say all true cat lovers and animal societies feel the way you do, but
>any research on the 'Net or with various animal societies will prove that
>there are many others who support the completely opposite view. You may
>feel they're wrong, but a great many people feel you're wrong as well.

ALL true cat lovers, and ALL societies working in the best interests
of cats, would not approve of keeping a healthy cat indoors 24/7.

The FACT is that none of the UK's major shelters, nor most of the
smaller ones that for various reasons affiliate with the big boys,
will normally rehome a healthy cat to an indoor only environment. This
has been confirmed on numerous occasions by people who work at the
grass roots level - actually finding homes for cats.
>
>
>> >One bad thing about domestication. We teach animals to trust humans.
>Sometimes I think
>> >that is ultimately a bad thing. :( Like I tried to explain to a friend
>about rehabbing
>> >wild creatures. You must not imprint them too much, because that fear and
>mistrust of
>> >humans may save their lives. Not all humans are kind and good.
>
>This is true. Bob says cats are only domesticated in that we've gotten them
>to live with us, but the fact is, they've lost many of their natural
>protections and instincts,

No they have not. Not one. Zero.

> and cannot be treated like true wild cats.
>Despite how little Bob says it happens, wild cats are becoming extinct not
>only because we're encroaching on their habitat, but, because this is
>happening, they are coming into human habitats for food, and thus, being
>shot.

Are you really that stupid. Go away and learn something about the wild
cats of the world - there are a lot of web sites out there. The all
list ONE MAJOR threat to the populations - habitat destruction.
Nothing else.

> If this is happening to big wild cats, what hope do small domestic
>cats have in protecting themselves against the dangers of city life?

Urban feral populations all over the world are not only surviving, but
flourishing.

> It's
>all well and good to address life in the EU, particularly in UK, but many
>people in this group are from cities in the US,

So what? The cat is the same creature on both sides of the pond. As
such it needs the same treatment. I will not stand by and allow
American's to ill-treat cat just because they are Americans.

>and could well chose not to
>own cats, but there would then be that many more feral cats living a not
>very satisfying life in the outdoors,

How do you work that out?

> of sickness, attacks, and possibly
>death, either by people wanting to rid themselves of the population (see
>Kaeli's site for a tragic story about an entire feral population wiped out
>by some idiot(s) with a 22.), or by cars, or some other horrible accident
>befalling them. You're well entitled to your opinion, Bob, but that opinion
>doesn't give you the right to make personal attacks on this newsgroup.

What gives me the right to make personal attacks is the ill-treatment
of cats. You should be ashamed of yourself for not only standing by
and allowing it to happen, but for also in part condoning it.

> I'm
>sure that most of the indoor cats owned by people here, even if not as happy
>as you believe they could be, are not suffering unduly; indoor owners may be
>'sick' in your opinion, but are not blind

They are - because if they were not then they would not ill-treat cats
like they do.

> and would be able to see if their
>cat was sulking around unhappily. And I truly believe that anyone on this
>group who saw their cat in that state *would*, indeed, find another home for
>it.

Pull the other one. When you have been around cat groups as long as I
have you will be sick of the ill-treatment American cats receive from
people who claim to be "loving owners".
>
>I know I'm wasting my breath, because you will probably just cut and paste
>your pat line in response, or contradict everything I've said, but I just
>felt the need to have my say. I won't continue banging my head against this
>brick wall much longer, though, because that kind of behavior truly *is*
>sick....
>
>Ann
>
--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.

Bob Brenchley.

August 4th 03, 01:49 PM

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 19:07:19 +0100, "bewtifulfreak"
> wrote:

>One last point on the indoor-outdoor debate: there aren't enough homes for
>stray cats as it is, so if you eliminate cat lovers who live in certain
>areas from having cats, there will just be that many more cats wandering
>homeless, and ill-equipped for it. I believe a cat suffers far more living
>a feral life than it does living an indoor life with a loving
>caretaker-companion, though, again, I realize you, Bob, will disagree.
>
>Ann
>
You bet I will disagree. There are more than enough homes, if only
more American shelters would learn the lessons the British ones can
give.

Those shelters I help are all no-kill, and that means they also will
never turn away a cat in need. They are, I'm pleased to say, now all
operating the rule of not homing healthy cats to indoor-only
situations except for short term fostering pending the finding of a
proper home.

Others can follow, I've offered help many times in the past. I cannot
go to the States to work hands on, but I can certainly teach them how
to run their shelters and how to raise the money necessary to reach
these goals.

--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.

Bob Brenchley.

August 4th 03, 01:50 PM

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 06:39:49 -0400, Bryan S. Slick
> wrote:

>[bewtifulfreak]
>[Sat, 2 Aug 2003 18:09:56 +0100]
>
>:> You have some strange garbage cans if a cat can do that.
>:>
>:> Also, all antifreeze produced in the EU is "pet safe".
>:
>:Not everyone in this group lives in the EU, Bob.
>
>Nor is that statement of his verifiable. While it is true that many
>current antifreeze products on the market are "pet safe" (in that they
>do not contain a significant amount of ethylene glycol), it's impossible
>to state with any accuracy that there are NO EG-containing antifreezes
>sold in the entire continent of Europe.

Sick Slick - Animal Abuser. Wondered when the scum of the cat world
would raise his ugly animal abusing head again.

--
Bob.

Alas, your intelligence qualifies you more for the primordial soup
than for the "master race." Recognize your limitations. Then shut
up.

Bob Brenchley.

August 4th 03, 02:13 PM

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 02:29:57 -0500, "DeAnna" >
wrote:

>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:17:21 -0500, "DeAnna"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
>> >> allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
>> >> day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
>> >> a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
>> >> cruel, selfish, or both.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Sir-
>> >
>> >Where do you live?
>> >
>> >You don't have any cat haters for neighbors?
>>
>> No. There may be the odd one who doesn't like cats very much, but that
>> would make them odd now wouldn't it?
>>
>> >Or perhaps you don't *know* you do? You know,
>> >the ones who are nice to your face, but secretly put antifreeze in a dish next to the
>> >garbage can that your cat rummages in, because he is throwing trash across their patio?
>>
>> You have some strange garbage cans if a cat can do that.
>>
>> Also, all antifreeze produced in the EU is "pet safe".
>>
>> > Or
>> >the one who shoots the cat with a pellet gun,
>>
>> Heard of that happening - guy got a very heavy fine and was soon
>> forced to move as a result of the hate campaign he earnt himself.
>>
>> > because the cat digs up his garden? Or the
>> >person who just hates cats because they are 'cats' and knowing swerves to HIT instead
>of
>> >swerving to miss, as kitty crosses the road?
>>
>> Sure, and then he gets done for hitting the parked cars :)
>>
>> > Are you aware that cats are the most
>> >frequently tortured of all domestic animals?
>>
>> Nope. Are you aware how infrequent any animal torture really is?
>> >
>> >So there is no traffic where you live?
>>
>> Lots.
>>
>> >No cases of feline AIDS?
>>
>> Not many.
>>
>> >No fleas
>>
>> Lots of those, but then humans bring them indoors on their clothes as
>> well.
>>
>> >or mosquitoes
>>
>> Nope.
>> >carrying worms or other blood-borne disease or parasite?
>> >
>> >Let me know where this Cat Utopia exists, because I'd love to live there.
>>
>> The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
>> >
>> >The feral we just took in, was because the neighbors (on whose destructive dog I had
>> >complained to Animal Control) were threatening to harm the cat,
>>
>> Something I would have reported to the police.
>>
>> > because (and I must say
>> >unfairly) they couldn't just CALL animal control, as there is currently no law
>forbidding
>> >cats to roam and destroy, but there is a law prohibiting DOGS from doing so.
>>
>> That is how it should be. Cats represent no danger to humans - dogs
>> do.
>>
>> >It wasn't
>> >even our cat, but looked similar to our cat, so they 'assumed' it belonged to us and
>> >threatened harm if we didn't 'keep it from bothering their dog'.
>>
>> As I said, such threats would be reported to the police.
>>
>> >Call me an 'abuser' all
>> >you like. This baby isn't going any where near the outdoors.
>>
>> The you are not just an abuser - but a very sick one.
>>
>> > I prefer to call myself a
>> >'responsible' pet owner.
>>
>> You would, but your lack of understanding of a cats needs makes your
>> an appallingly bad cat owner.
>>
>> >I am responsible for the behaviour of my kitties, as well as my
>> >dog, and NONE of them are allowed off the property. They can go outside on leashes, or
>> >attended if they obey me and stay in the yard (as my "son" did). They will soon have an
>> >area that is 'enclosed' keeping them safely away from any predators, especially the
>humans
>> >predators, of the ignorant and violent persuasion, yet allowing them access to the
>grass,
>> >and sights and smells of outdoors.
>>
>> Your animal abusing sickness seems to be very deep rooted. Maybe you
>> should seek treatment for your mental problems.
>> >
>> >I am not going to turn this little darling outside, to find her headless body on my
>> >doorstep as part of some nasty neighbor feud, simply because I wouldn't allow their dog
>to
>> >live at my house, eating my shoes and chewing up my garden hose.
>> >
>> >One bad thing about domestication. We teach animals to trust humans. Sometimes I think
>> >that is ultimately a bad thing. :( Like I tried to explain to a friend about
>rehabbing
>> >wild creatures. You must not imprint them too much, because that fear and mistrust of
>> >humans may save their lives. Not all humans are kind and good.
>> >
>> >Sorry, I have to go "abuse" my babies, it is time for their nightly snack of cream
>and/or
>> >tuna, and they have all taken turn to come remind me. :) They certainly have me very
>> >well trained.
>>
>> You really are sick.
>> >
>> >D.
>> >
>> >PS-The door was opened to let the dog 'do her business' for the night. All of the cats
>ran
>> >in the opposite direction as I held open the door, though I made no effort to stop them
>> >going onto the porch. The dog went out long enough to accomplish what she had to, then
>> >promptly sat at the door until I opened the screen for her to come in. I am thinking
>> >they'd all rather be in this comfy A/C, lounging on comfy furniture, and licking the
>tuna
>> >from their chins, than 'roaming'......
>> >
>> --

Moronic posting style corrected. You have been charged $50 for this
service, please remit by international money order as a donation to
Cats Protection (cats.org.uk) within the next 7 days. Be warned that
repeated use of this service will incur a escalating rate of charges.

>Mr. Brenchley-
>
>Have you no better manners than to hurl unfounded insults at those who disagree with your
>personal opinion? Shame on you.

After many years on cat groups trying to educated the ignorant - no.
>
>I do not believe for one moment that you can sit on your self-righteous high horse and
>sanctimoniously claim that you have no "cat haters" in the UK or Northern Ireland.

Where did I ever say that?

>You've
>folks there that kill other humans for their difference in religious beliefs. And you
>expect me to believe that no one becomes enraged over the destruction of their property?

By cats? No, not really.

>Oft times, it is not a hatred of the animal, but a resentment of the inconsiderate
>neighbor who'd let them run amok, defacing things that do not belong to them, that spurs
>the retaliatory behaviour, which is then taken out upon the unsuspecting, trusting pet.

People who do not like animals in their gardens have the right to keep
them out. They do not have the right to harm the animal though.
>
>It is a matter of personal responsibility, and not only cats, but dogs, and any other pets
>or livestock, and even extended to children, that are bound by this code of civility. You
>don't break or destroy, or allow to be broken or destroyed, that which you do not own.
>Anything less is vandalism, and the owner has every right to want retribution. Some owners
>however, take less than legal forms of retribution, and the end victim ends up being the
>poor trusting creature.
>
>As for the antifreeze in EU, it is wonderful that you have only the non-toxic form.

Nope - not none-toxic. A chemical that is added makes the antifreeze
unpalatable to animals (and kids). The basic anti-freeze is the same.

>However, I am sure you folks have rat poison. That is how Aja, my mother's beloved Persian
>died. D-con mixed with canned cat food. The neighbors were upset that the cat used their
>prize winning garden as a litter box. As it could not be proved, there was nothing we
>could do, and it wouldn't have mattered. The kitty was dead, and no matter of finger
>pointing or even criminal conviction would have brought him back.

But for the sake of other cats a criminal conviction would have
helped. Most people would not have rat poison, in fact I can't
remember the last time I saw any being used. And of course, tests
would soon link the poison to the death and then the police would
prosecute.
>
>You say "Not many" cases of Feline Aids? Watch one of your babies waste slowly away,
>slowly dying before your helpless hands, and say "How many?" is too many. To me, ONE is
>too many. A generic "not many" doesn't cut it. I don't enjoy seeing any animal die in my
>arms.

Life can never be without risk, but you try for the balance.
>
>As for the neighbors making threats, you can report 'such threats' to police (I reported
>them to animal control when I posted the cat as "found"-here you must post an animal as
>found for three days, and when the 'owner' fails to come to the pound looking for them,
>they belong to you).

Only three days? It really should be three weeks, which allows for
people taking a couple of weeks holiday and the cat going AWOL on the
first day.

>However, you can't prosecute someone for what they *might* do. *IF*
>they carry through, and *BIG IF* they can *PROVE* they did it, THEN AND ONLY THEN, will
>they be held responsible.

Well if they make threats, that in itself can be a criminal offence,
but it would at least get them a warning from the police that they had
better not try anything. If something then happened to the cat, well
the police do not take being ignored like that very lightly.

>But is it better to prevent the misdeed, than to attempt to gain
>recompense after the fact? Would you allow your child to be murdered so you could
>prosecute the guilty party?

Your stupidity is showing. A cat is NOT a child, by the age of a year
it is a full adult. Would you keep your sister in 24/7 just because
there is a risk she could be mugged or raped if she went out?

What you do is to look at your area, and if you consider it unsafe for
cats to freely roam for at least some time each day, then DON'T have
cats.
>
>If you think animal torture to be infrequent, you must either by someone who doesn't watch
>the news, or someone who is delusional. And the frequency is of no matter to the victim's
>family. It only takes that once, to drive a stake of pain through their heart. The fact
>that it hasn't happened often is of no consolation to those who lost a loved one.

But it is no excuse to ill-treat cats by keeping them indoors 24/7.

Even in the UK, some children are murdered by strangers - but that
does not mean we keep all our kids indoors 24/7. What it means is
that, as a society, we do all we can to catch and punish the murderers
- making it less likely that others will be tempted to follow suit.
>
>I hope my "deep rooted" "sickness" and "abuse" of protecting and nurturing my animals with
>the same care and tenderness

But you are NOT showing then care and tenderness - your are not
providing them with a proper life. At best the manage a rather meager
half-life, cut of from so much that is important to them.

>that I show my human offspring spreads to every human. I have
>had very few cats that ever desired to be outdoors.

Liar!

> Even when THEY are given the choice,
>they prefer to be indoors.

Well if you systematically abuse them long enough that is the sort of
miserable half-cat you get as a result.

>Perhaps they know more than any of us give them credit for.
>Those who truly love their animals would literally lay down their lives for them, and
>would never intentionally put them in harms way.

You live in a very sad little dream world - life is a balance, and you
are not allowing your cat to live its life.

> That includes in the path of a moving
>car, an angry neighbor, or a disease infested wild animal, that picks a fight out of the
>need to survive. No animal in my care will come to any harm at all,

Liar! You put your cats at greater risk of disease than I do, because
their immune systems will not be able to cope with things properly.
You put your cats at FAR greater risk when they do eventually escape
(as all cats do).

>if I can at all help
>it. They are all very healthy, happy, and loving, and that speaks volumes more truth, than
>any opinion typed in ignorance.

The only ignorance is yours - animal abuser.
>
>If you truly believe in all that you put in your posts, I feel very sorry for you, and for
>the animals in your care. You must be a bitter, miserable person to be so hateful, and
>contemptuous in the way you treat other people, and it makes me wonder how that translates
>to how you treat those poor creatures who are in your care.
>
>D.
>
--
Bob.

Alas, your intelligence qualifies you more for the primordial soup
than for the "master race." Recognize your limitations. Then shut
up.

No One But Me

August 4th 03, 05:14 PM

just because something is not your world view does not make him wrong for
his world view. all you have control of is your world not his. quit trying
to control the whole world & you'll be a whole lot happier.

although i do not agree with a lot of what brenchley writes, based on my own
personal experience, I agree with allowing cats outdoors. of my own 11 cats,
7 are allowed to go outside (1 of them is even declawed). i would not dream
of keeping them indoors only. they would not be happy there. whatever i wish
for my cats, i wish them to be happy. of the other 4 cats, 2 are kittens who
will never go out (destined for declawing both of them), 1 is an adult tabby
who has never gone out (& is declawed), and 1 is kept indoors for his own
protection. he is not the brightest bulb in the package so he is not allowed
outside. besides, at 3 he still has not learned to come when he is called,
everytime he is called ... & that is a big requirement for going outside.
the other 7 always come when they are called ... every single time they are
called. my ultimate goal with all my pets is their happiness not my
happiness. i guess i'm just not that selfish by nature.

barbara

"L. Kelly" > wrote in message
. ca...
> | > I wanted you to know bewtifulfreak that I really appreciate your
common
> | > sense. Trying to carry on a intelligent conversation with Bob is not
> | > possible. But thanks for trying!
> |
> | Thank you, Mogie, that means a lot to me. :) I realized that right from
the
> | start, and intend to stop trying. I usually do okay at ignoring people
like
> | that - and plonking him will make it that much easier - but when people
> | can't disagree without making personal attacks, it just seems to bring
out
> | the avenging angel in me, LOL! But clearly, Bob is not into common
sense,
> | and nothing I can say will stop him making his unmitigated judgements
about
> | the allegedy sickness, selfishness, or cruelty of all you wonderful
folks in
> | the group. Like Dear Abby (or was it Ann Landers?) once said, trying to
> | reason with an alcoholic is like trying to blow out a lightbulb, and
trying
> | to discuss anything with Bob is exactly the same!
> |
> | Ann
>
> As a further note in trying to reason with Bob.....I read a quote today
that I think fits
> him perfectly and thought that I would share it will all who are
interested.
>
> "How much easier it is to be critical, than to be correct." ... Benjamin
Disraeli
>
> In the debate on whether or not to keep a cat strictly indoors, or let it
have some
> outdoor freedom, there really is no "right" or "wrong." I feel that the
cats will let the
> slaves know if they are unhappy. As long as the cats are fed, loved, happy
and healthy,
> the slave should have the right to chose what is "good" for their cat.
>
> In rural areas, with fewer dangers...let your cats have some freedom. In
the city,
> wrought with every kind of evil you can imagine, use your best
judgement...and let your
> kitties always be your guides in what that decision is.
> --
> Hugs,
> Lynn
>
>
> *strip CLOTHES to reply*
> Homepage: http://members.shaw.ca/sewfinefashions/
> See my boys: http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/papavince_29/
>
>
>

bewtifulfreak

August 4th 03, 06:09 PM

First off, just want you to know that you guys out there putting your butt
on the line in the name of freedom and support of your fellow man are much
appreciated.

"Bryan S. Slick" > wrote in message
...

> :>Nor is that statement of his verifiable.

> There is absolutely no truth to the statement that UK shelters will not
> place a cat in an indoor-only environment. This was proven last year
> when Cats Protection itself was writing messages to be posted on this
> newsgroup, said messages specifically stating that you did not speak for
> them, nor could you, as well as stating that they were rather tired of
> having to deal with you at all. Then again, the fact that something is
> absolute 100% nonsense doesn't keep you from spouting it as fact. :)

I noticed that's how he tries to dominate, by making statements that sound
like fact, that you couldn't generally refute without a great deal of
research. That said, as far as his argument for wet food over dry, while
there's still the issue of the moisture being processed differently when
ingested in the food as opposed to seperately, so much for the issue of dry
being full of cereals that cats don't normally get in the wild; I went
looking for wet today, and couldn't find one that was pure meat, they all
contain cereals as well. Maybe less so than dry, I'm not sure, but it looks
like almost no cat food is carb free. So, since I'm still not sure about
the whole issue, will probably just give them a balance of both and be done
with it!

And yes, after trying to hold an intelligent debate with Bob, I've already
seen him for what he is, and how he would rather insult and parrot his same
tired lines than try to convince you of his position by addressing the
points you make. Therefore, although I don't make a habit of doing so, I've
already killfiled him; when someone is blatently abusive, and refuses to
hold an intelligent debate on a discussion group, I see no point in exposing
myself to their negativity.

Glad to have you back safe and sound. :)

Ann

Ted Davis

August 5th 03, 02:38 AM

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:09:01 +0100, "bewtifulfreak"
> wrote:

<Snip>
> I went
>looking for wet today, and couldn't find one that was pure meat, they all
>contain cereals as well. Maybe less so than dry, I'm not sure, but it looks
>like almost no cat food is carb free. So, since I'm still not sure about
>the whole issue, will probably just give them a balance of both and be done
>with it!

Note that cats eat *entire* mice, including the mouse's last meal or
two ... and what do mice eat? Even feral cats eat cereals. Cats are
a lot less exclusively carnivorous than most people think.

T.E.D. - e-mail must contain "T.E.D." or my .sig in the body)

bewtifulfreak

August 5th 03, 02:50 AM

"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:09:01 +0100, "bewtifulfreak"
> > wrote:
>
> <Snip>
> > I went
> >looking for wet today, and couldn't find one that was pure meat, they all
> >contain cereals as well. Maybe less so than dry, I'm not sure, but it
looks
> >like almost no cat food is carb free. So, since I'm still not sure about
> >the whole issue, will probably just give them a balance of both and be
done
> >with it!
>
> Note that cats eat *entire* mice, including the mouse's last meal or
> two ... and what do mice eat? Even feral cats eat cereals. Cats are
> a lot less exclusively carnivorous than most people think.

Oh, yeah, huh?! Thanks for that....makes good sense, and puts my mind at
ease a bit. :)

Ann

Gee

August 5th 03, 09:11 AM

> As for Bob.. I occasionally ignore him as well.. Hell, mostly.. but from
> time to time it is necessary to smack him down a peg or two, lest he
> think that the group as a whole has accepted him as some kind of
> authority figure, rather than someone who thinks he can win an argument
> by being the loudest voice in the room. Heh.
>

Authority figure!?/???!!!!! Don;t make me laugh! He is more like a joke
figure in here. Everybody knows Bob's "gems"! I dealt with him for years,
and I can tell you one thing, he has upset and got rid of many people on
this and other cat forums, and all becuase they wouldn;t agree with his
opinion. He would then start abusing them, lying through his teeth, calling
people names and to the point of , in my case, calling even my dead cat the
ugliest names, just becuase I disagreed with him. And we all know what kind
of person could ever stoop so low! So that was it for me, I killfiled this
waste of space, time and air. He is not a type of person I want in my life,
not even a virtual one!!! There are far too many nicer people on this board
who want to discuss cats, which is essentially why we are here. And if there
is a discussion and difference of opinions, there is nothing wrong with it,
as long as it is adult and civilised. Bob wouldn;t understand the meaning of
this.

So don;t worry about Boob. We all know Boob only too well! :) We just
killfiled him, or treat him for what he is: nothing.

Gee

No One But Me

August 5th 03, 07:02 PM

just because people disagree with you, kaeli, doesn't mean they are wrong.
your world view is your world view and you do not have the right to draw the
lines for the whole world. the only portion of the world you can change is
your little world view. gawd! i'm glad i have the RIGHT to do with my animal
as i please & no one else gets a say.

FYI, the declawed cat that goes out is not one i declawed. that one was
abandoned in the front yard in a city 350 miles from my home by an owner who
just up and moved & left him there to fend for himself. my daughter rescued
him & brought him to me. and those were good folks just like you. so don't
talk to me about selfish. i have 11 cats, nine of which were other people's
throwaways. Nine of which were abandoned by good folks just like you. i
would say they're lives are infinitely better now than they were before
their owner just threw them out, even if they were declawed by me. in order
to have a home, food in your bowl, water to drink, regular medical care, and
an owner to take care of them & love them, prices have to be paid. i don't
think my cats hate the price (declawing) they paid for a home. they seem
very happy to me. and they would never leave with someone else. that someone
else would have to come into my yard & take them. they wouldn't go
willingly.

there's no end of people who try to draw the lines for the whole world. now
that's selfish & self-centered.

Barbara

"kaeli" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> enlightened us with...
> > just because something is not your world view does not make him wrong
for
> > his world view. all you have control of is your world not his. quit
trying
> > to control the whole world & you'll be a whole lot happier.
> >
> > although i do not agree with a lot of what brenchley writes, based on my
own
> > personal experience, I agree with allowing cats outdoors. of my own 11 c
ats,
> > 7 are allowed to go outside (1 of them is even declawed). i would not
dream
> > of keeping them indoors only. they would not be happy there. whatever i
wish
> > for my cats, i wish them to be happy. of the other 4 cats, 2 are kittens
who
> > will never go out (destined for declawing both of them), 1 is an adult
tabby
> > who has never gone out (& is declawed), and 1 is kept indoors for his
own
> > protection. he is not the brightest bulb in the package so he is not
allowed
> > outside. besides, at 3 he still has not learned to come when he is
called,
> > everytime he is called ... & that is a big requirement for going
outside.
> > the other 7 always come when they are called ... every single time they
are
> > called. my ultimate goal with all my pets is their happiness not my
> > happiness. i guess i'm just not that selfish by nature.
> >
> > barbara
>
> You aren't selfish enough to keep them in, but you'll amputate the last
> digit on the toes, a procedure that is painful, can be debilitating, and
> has no benefits to the cat whatsoever?
>
> Yeah, okay. You keep on telling other people how selfish they are.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> ~kaeli~
> Found God? If nobody claims Him in 30 days,
> He's yours to keep.
> Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any
> more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
> http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
> http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
> -------------------------------------------------

Arjun Ray

August 6th 03, 03:20 AM

In >, "No One But Me"
> wrote:

| just because people disagree with you, kaeli, doesn't mean they are
| wrong.

You don't qualify for this generalization...

| i'm glad i have the RIGHT to do with my animal as i please & no one
| else gets a say.

.... and that's why.

The Smothers brothers must have had you in mind: "I am American. I have
the RIGHT to be stupid."

| FYI, the declawed cat that goes out is not one i declawed. that one was
| abandoned in the front yard in a city 350 miles from my home

And uphill both ways, right?

| my daughter rescued him & brought him to me.

Pity. Your daughter needed a clue.

| i would say

oh my. not just an ignoramus. an affected, opinionated ignoramus.

| they're lives are infinitely better now than they were before their
| owner just threw them out, even if they were declawed by me.

They went from frying pan to fire. HTH.

| in order to have a home,

Does your trailer have running water?

| food in your bowl,

Corn filler dry food from the grocery store?

| water to drink,

Oh wow, the flush works now and then.

| regular medical care,

For crystals in the bladder? How considerate of you.

| and an owner to take care of them & love them, prices have to be paid.

Oh right, the cat signed a contract, there were witnesses, and you had
it notarized. After all, you didn't want the cat to sue, in case your
insurance premiums went up. Wow, that was smart!

You love for pay, and so you got the cats to pay you to love them!

Idiotic "arguments" like this explain why the left tail of the bell
curve is so fat.

DeAnna

August 6th 03, 06:09 AM

This man surely can't be a DVM.

If he is, I am glad to live in America.

Recommending leaving cats outdoors to benefit their immune system? Claiming to be a
champion for the right to toss cats out of doors to be left at the mercy of the elements,
in the name of a 'full life'.....

LOL

Sheesh.

D.

"Don Swenson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:57:45 +0100, Bob Brenchley.
> > wrote:
>
> >On 29 Jul 2003 15:36:41 +1000, wrote:
> >
> >>In article >,
> >>Bob Brenchley. > wrote:
>
>
> >If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
> >allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
> >day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
> >a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
> >cruel, selfish, or both.
> >>
>
> Yeah, yeah, Bob. Can't you come up with a better line you little
> ******? Not only are you a ******, but you're a liar too. Oh wait, I
> forgot you're a DVM who is smarter than all of the other DVMs in the
> world. My bad.
>
>
> ***********************************************
>
> "Free-ranging cats in the United States have an average lifespan in
> the general population of only 3 to 5 years; indoor cats have an
> average lifespan of 12 years and frequently live longer than 20
> years..."
> (Karen L. Overall, M.A., V.M.D., Ph.D., Diplomate, American College
> of Veterinary Behavior; Department of Clinical Studies School of
> Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
> Pennsylvania)
>
> "The hazards of the outdoors-automobiles, dogs, rival cats, poisonous
> plants, infectious diseases, and fleas, to name but a few-are
> compelling reasons to keep cats exclusively indoors."
> (Dr. James Richards, Director, Cornell Feline Health Center,
> College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York)
>
> "Cats can be happily kept inside all the time"
> (Robert J. Holmes, BVM&S, PhD, MRCVS, FACVSc,
> Cat Behavior and Training
> Animal Behaviour Clinic, Malvern Vie 3 144, Australia)

DeAnna

August 6th 03, 06:18 AM

> Moronic posting style corrected. You have been charged $50 for this
> service, please remit by international money order as a donation to
> Cats Protection (cats.org.uk) within the next 7 days. Be warned that
> repeated use of this service will incur a escalating rate of charges.

When you can prove fit to judge my posting style, I will remit a payment. Until then, you
may be compensated exactly what your opinions are worth. Consider that amount as having
been posted to your account.

> After many years on cat groups trying to educated the ignorant - no.

Rather like the blind leading the blind? Ah, another 'victim' who must blame their own bad
behaviour on their perceived actions of others. If you don't get help at Charter.......get
help somewhere.

> Where did I ever say that?

You would have us believe that it is totally safe to allow your cats to roam unsupervised,
with no fear of abuse. I think you are just trying to offer more excuses for irresponsible
behaviour.

> >You've
> >folks there that kill other humans for their difference in religious beliefs. And you
> >expect me to believe that no one becomes enraged over the destruction of their
property?
>
> By cats? No, not really.

Cats, kids, cars, sheep, little green men from Mars?.... people who are upset because the
property they work hard and pay for becomes ruined are most often not really concerned
with the "by what?" question. They are just upset that the incident occurs. The fact
remains that cats DO harm the property of others, they can scratch paint on expensive
cars, defecate and urinate in plantings, kill song birds, and other small pets and
wildlife, and often disturb other peoples pets, inciting dogs to bark. These kind of
actions occur world wide, as cats are cats, and don't understand the etiquette of trying
to feel somehow morally superiour because they live in the UK. You do not have the power
to control how these people react, only the power to see they don't have a reason to react
in the first place.

> People who do not like animals in their gardens have the right to keep
> them out. They do not have the right to harm the animal though.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if everyone operated ONLY within their legal rights? You
may come back to reality at any time, or stay in your delusional fantasy world where
people don't do bad things because you 'prosecute' and 'punish' them.

>> But for the sake of other cats a criminal conviction would have
> helped. Most people would not have rat poison, in fact I can't
> remember the last time I saw any being used. And of course, tests
> would soon link the poison to the death and then the police would
> prosecute.

I have come to the conclusion that you are either an insipid troll, a complete blithering
fool with way too much time on his hands, or a seriously delusional mental case. The
police have their hands full solving HUMAN murders. Both in the UK, and the US. You SURELY
don't expect them to do full forensic testing because of a dead CAT? Rat poison is very
common here, and obtainable in any grocery store. We reported the death. There was
absolutely no way to prove how the cat had gotten in to the poison, and like the police
officer said, "It could have been from eating a contaminated mouse that had recently
filled it's stomach." A neighbor on the other side of the 'alleged' poisoner hinted that
they knew what happened, but would not come forward because they "have to live next to
this person, and didn't want any trouble". Even if the person did 'say' what they knew, it
would be 'hearsay' evidence, and thus inadmissible in a court, and a LONG way from proving
anything. And even *IF* they did prosecute, what would the person get? A fine? A month in
the county jail?

Here's another hint-police don't prosecute here. The District Attorney's office does.
Perhaps your have been watching too many fantasy detective shows, where the copper always
'gets the bad guy' in the end.

Ahh, and as for "most people" not having rat poison? Here, in fact, is a quote from
http://www.simplyonecall.co.uk/ of Northern Ireland-
Preparative baiting
Rodenticide bait is placed at strategic, safe points, inside and outside the buildings, in
order to reduce populations around the building and to deal with individuals that enter,
before an infestation can take hold.

Gee, I wonder where they get that rodenticide?

> Only three days? It really should be three weeks, which allows for
> people taking a couple of weeks holiday and the cat going AWOL on the
> first day.

I suppose they figure if you are irresponsible enough to let your unaltered animal run
amok while you are on holiday, it is better off with someone else. This cat had been
living in an partially constructed house across the road for over a month. It is also very
apparent that it is a feral animal. So no need to get your knickers in a bunch worrying
about owners showing up.

> Well if they make threats, that in itself can be a criminal offence,
> but it would at least get them a warning from the police that they had
> better not try anything. If something then happened to the cat, well
> the police do not take being ignored like that very lightly.

Those kind of people can be warned and warned. They were warned about keeping the dog on
their own property, or they'd be given a citation, but guess where the dog was again last
week?

> Your stupidity is showing. A cat is NOT a child, by the age of a year
> it is a full adult. Would you keep your sister in 24/7 just because
> there is a risk she could be mugged or raped if she went out?

Your point of view is absurd. 1. A cat cannot be communicated with like even a human CHILD
can. You can't tell the cat, "Okay, you can go play at Fluffy's, but don't cross the
street by yourself, and be home by seven." 2. I ALWAYS knew where my kids were. At all
times. NO exceptions. And until they were old enough to stay away from traffic and
strangers, they went NO WHERE without an adult. My animals are the same way. When they go
outdoors, they are supervised, for their protection, and as a matter of decency and
responsibilty. Comparing an "adult" animal with only a limited understanding of the human
world, to a fully competent adult human is like comparing a severly mentally handicapped
person of age, with Einstein. Both may be of legal majority, or physically full grown, but
it does not mean that unfortunate handicapped person has the capability to fend for
themselves in a hostile environment, with the same success as a person who has a greater
mental capacity.

> But it is no excuse to ill-treat cats by keeping them indoors 24/7.

Again, what are you taking/smoking that makes you think that providing a cat with a
spacious environment, and supervised outdoor activity, is ill-treating them? Would you
throw a three year old out of doors, unsupervised? They can obey safety rules about as
well as a cat can. Do you think the three year old will stay in his own yard, or look
before he crosses the road?

> Even in the UK, some children are murdered by strangers - but that
> does not mean we keep all our kids indoors 24/7. What it means is
> that, as a society, we do all we can to catch and punish the murderers
> - making it less likely that others will be tempted to follow suit.

Catch and punish all you like. I see what they did to those two ten year olds who tortured
and molested that poor two year old until he was dead, then had the forethought to try and
hide their sick crime. Wiped their records and set them free. Bully for your vastly
superiour catch and punish system (NOT!). I would not ever let a child OR a pet of mine
out of my site, in the UK or the US.

> But you are NOT showing then care and tenderness - your are not
> providing them with a proper life. At best the manage a rather meager
> half-life, cut of from so much that is important to them.

What is it that you deem so important? Defecating on the neighbors yard in lieu of their
own? Hunting and killing? (Mine do that indoors, only it is scorpions, and spiders,
instead of mice). They have lizards and fish to watch, plenty of activity, and plants to
chew on. They have places to scratch, climb and plenty of open area to run. A meager life
is a cat that just "exists". Thrown out of doors, without companionship or love, until
such a time as to dump some morsel into its bowl. That isn't a life. That isn't a
relationship. That is a 'possession'. Might as well have a statue.

> Liar!
>
Well, you show me one instance where I've lied. You, on the other hand, are the one who
inferred that they don't have rat poison in the UK.

> > Even when THEY are given the choice,
> >they prefer to be indoors.
>
> Well if you systematically abuse them long enough that is the sort of
> miserable half-cat you get as a result.

Go on believing your delusions. You must really have some deep seated emotional problems
to carry on the way you do. Tell me, what kind of real life do you have, besides keeping
non-pets that 'belong' to you, pnly to roam around to only God-knows-where until feeding
time? Perhaps the lackings in your own interpersonal relationship skills are what drives
you to live the fantasy VR life of a newsgroup troll. Do you actually even OWN a cat?

>
> >Perhaps they know more than any of us give them credit for.
> >Those who truly love their animals would literally lay down their lives for them, and
> >would never intentionally put them in harms way.
>
> You live in a very sad little dream world - life is a balance, and you
> are not allowing your cat to live its life.

I think the health and happiness of my animals speaks volumes as to their balance. Tell
me, are your cats well enough behaved to sit in the seat of a shopping basket as you push
it round the store? How much 'quality' time do you actually spend, interacting with your
animals, and giving them love? (Don't count that fifteen seconds it takes to open the tin
and dump the cat food in the bowl as "quality time".) Do you take your cats on outings?
(Don't count trips to the vet when they come home all torn to shreds from tangling with
some vicious wildlife).

> Liar! You put your cats at greater risk of disease than I do, because
> their immune systems will not be able to cope with things properly.
> You put your cats at FAR greater risk when they do eventually escape
> (as all cats do).

You are so confused. The immune system developes in a normal healthy cat, whether exposed
to viruses or not. It does not take constant exposure to contaminents or infectious
biohazards to stimulate immune development. A person (or cat) can have a fully functional,
non-compromised immune system without being exposed to the myriad of 'bugs' available to
wandering strays. In fact, feline AIDS is a leading cause of MANY cat illnesses, and is
usually transmitted by a bite or scratch wound caused by fighting.

From Cornell Feline Health Center, Cornell University-
"FIV-infected cats are found worldwide, but the prevalence of infection depends on
geographic locale and the population of cats tested. In the United States, approximately
1.5 to 3% of healthy cats are infected with FIV. Infection rates rise significantly in
cats that are sick; up to 15% of cats with clinical signs of other disease also are
infected with FIV. Free-roaming male cats -- especially aggressive ones -- are the most
frequently infected, while cats housed exclusively indoors are much less likely to be
infected. "

Full article appears here:

http://web.vet.cornell.edu/Public/FHC/fiv.html

It would appear letting your cat OUTDOORS is actually a greater risk to compromising their
immune system. Where did you get your degree in immunology? Please go ask them for a
refund.
>
> >if I can at all help
> >it. They are all very healthy, happy, and loving, and that speaks volumes more truth,
than
> >any opinion typed in ignorance.
>
> The only ignorance is yours - animal abuser.

*sigh* There is this saying about mud wrestling with a pig......

>
> Alas, your intelligence qualifies you more for the primordial soup
> than for the "master race." Recognize your limitations. Then shut
> up.

I have test results putting my IQ over the 130 mark. What is yours, Bob? Care to share?
No lying now! *snicker*

And FYI, who is to say the cats aren't the master race?

If you spent the amount of time you waste each day trolling this newsgroup with your inane
verbosity, instead on actually CARING for your pets, instead of tossing them outside, out
of your way, perhaps you'd not be such an ill-mannered, boorish troll.

D.

DeAnna

August 6th 03, 06:25 AM

Hey... watch the top poster cracks, now! Be nice! ;)

Like everything else, everyone has their own favorite flavour and style.

Live and let live, I always say.

:)

D.

"Arjun Ray" > wrote in message
...
> In >, kaeli
> > wrote:
> | In article >,
> | enlightened us with...
>
> |> 2 are kittens who will never go out (destined for declawing both of them),
>
> Will you ever learn to keep your filthy mitts off helpless animals?
>
> |> i guess i'm just not that selfish by nature.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
>
> | You aren't selfish enough to keep them in, but you'll amputate the last
> | digit on the toes, a procedure that is painful, can be debilitating, and
> | has no benefits to the cat whatsoever?
>
> And swat them with rolled up newspapers if they get uppity.
>
> And shoot dogs if they chance into her yard.
>
> And thinks no cat will fail to eat if food is available.
>
> It goes on and on.
>
> | Yeah, okay. You keep on telling other people how selfish they are.
>
> Barbara Peale > is some piece of work (and an
> inveterate top-poster, but that's only to be expected of her ilk.)
> Google her usenet oeuvre only if you have a strong stomach.
>

DeAnna

August 6th 03, 06:26 AM

Barbara-

I think you are confused here.

Bob is the one who is 'campaigning' for control of the cat keeping world (including us
nasty Americans!)

Some Brenchly wretchings:
"As such it needs the same treatment. I will not stand by and allow
American's to ill-treat cat just because they are Americans."

"What gives me the right to make personal attacks is the ill-treatment
of cats. You should be ashamed of yourself for not only standing by
and allowing it to happen, but for also in part condoning it."

I have to agree with you. This certain proves the truth in one of your statements....

> there's no end of people who try to draw the lines for the whole world. now
> that's selfish & self-centered.

D.

"No One But Me" > wrote in message
...
> just because people disagree with you, kaeli, doesn't mean they are wrong.
> your world view is your world view and you do not have the right to draw the
> lines for the whole world. the only portion of the world you can change is
> your little world view. gawd! i'm glad i have the RIGHT to do with my animal
> as i please & no one else gets a say.
>
> FYI, the declawed cat that goes out is not one i declawed. that one was
> abandoned in the front yard in a city 350 miles from my home by an owner who
> just up and moved & left him there to fend for himself. my daughter rescued
> him & brought him to me. and those were good folks just like you. so don't
> talk to me about selfish. i have 11 cats, nine of which were other people's
> throwaways. Nine of which were abandoned by good folks just like you. i
> would say they're lives are infinitely better now than they were before
> their owner just threw them out, even if they were declawed by me. in order
> to have a home, food in your bowl, water to drink, regular medical care, and
> an owner to take care of them & love them, prices have to be paid. i don't
> think my cats hate the price (declawing) they paid for a home. they seem
> very happy to me. and they would never leave with someone else. that someone
> else would have to come into my yard & take them. they wouldn't go
> willingly.
>
> there's no end of people who try to draw the lines for the whole world. now
> that's selfish & self-centered.
>
> Barbara
>
> "kaeli" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > enlightened us with...
> > > just because something is not your world view does not make him wrong
> for
> > > his world view. all you have control of is your world not his. quit
> trying
> > > to control the whole world & you'll be a whole lot happier.
> > >
> > > although i do not agree with a lot of what brenchley writes, based on my
> own
> > > personal experience, I agree with allowing cats outdoors. of my own 11 c
> ats,
> > > 7 are allowed to go outside (1 of them is even declawed). i would not
> dream
> > > of keeping them indoors only. they would not be happy there. whatever i
> wish
> > > for my cats, i wish them to be happy. of the other 4 cats, 2 are kittens
> who
> > > will never go out (destined for declawing both of them), 1 is an adult
> tabby
> > > who has never gone out (& is declawed), and 1 is kept indoors for his
> own
> > > protection. he is not the brightest bulb in the package so he is not
> allowed
> > > outside. besides, at 3 he still has not learned to come when he is
> called,
> > > everytime he is called ... & that is a big requirement for going
> outside.
> > > the other 7 always come when they are called ... every single time they
> are
> > > called. my ultimate goal with all my pets is their happiness not my
> > > happiness. i guess i'm just not that selfish by nature.
> > >
> > > barbara
> >
> > You aren't selfish enough to keep them in, but you'll amputate the last
> > digit on the toes, a procedure that is painful, can be debilitating, and
> > has no benefits to the cat whatsoever?
> >
> > Yeah, okay. You keep on telling other people how selfish they are.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > ~kaeli~
> > Found God? If nobody claims Him in 30 days,
> > He's yours to keep.
> > Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any
> > more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
> > http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
> > http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
> > -------------------------------------------------
>
>

Arjun Ray

August 6th 03, 06:35 AM

In >, "DeAnna"
> wrote:

| Like everything else, everyone has their own favorite flavour and
| style.

Usenet is a medium for communication. The conventions for effective
communication were developed by people smarter than you and me, long
before you or I got here. It is not a loss of individuality to learn
something and put it into practice. Please see:

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
http://www.digital-web.com/tutorials/tutorial_1999-12.shtml

Bryan S. Slick

August 6th 03, 12:06 PM

[DeAnna]
[Wed, 6 Aug 2003 00:18:36 -0500]

:> Moronic posting style corrected. You have been charged $50 for this
:> service, please remit by international money order as a donation to
:> Cats Protection (cats.org.uk) within the next 7 days. Be warned that
:> repeated use of this service will incur a escalating rate of charges.
:
:When you can prove fit to judge my posting style, I will remit a payment. Until then, you
:may be compensated exactly what your opinions are worth. Consider that amount as having
:been posted to your account.

As was proven last year via repeated mailings to their attorney, Cats
Protection is in no way affiliated with the poster to whom you are
replying. If you wish, you can e-mail them and let them know that he is
once again making demands in their name. I was told last year that they
were seriously considering legal action against him.

--
Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net

"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."

kaeli

August 6th 03, 02:38 PM

In article >,
enlightened us with...
> just because people disagree with you, kaeli, doesn't mean they are wrong.
> your world view is your world view and you do not have the right to draw the
> lines for the whole world. the only portion of the world you can change is
> your little world view. gawd! i'm glad i have the RIGHT to do with my animal
> as i please & no one else gets a say.
>

You also have the right to kill yourself, your animals, and your unborn
child. Doesn't mean you should.
And you DON'T have the right to torture your animal, at least in most
areas of the United States and England. So, you can't do whatever you
want. And declawing will be banned eventually here as it is in the UK
and other civilized countries. So you won't have the right to do that,
either.

> FYI, the declawed cat that goes out is not one i declawed. that one was
> abandoned in the front yard in a city 350 miles from my home by an owner who
> just up and moved & left him there to fend for himself. my daughter rescued
> him & brought him to me. and those were good folks just like you. so don't
> talk to me about selfish. i have 11 cats, nine of which were other people's
> throwaways. Nine of which were abandoned by good folks just like you. i
> would say they're lives are infinitely better now than they were before
> their owner just threw them out, even if they were declawed by me. in order
> to have a home, food in your bowl, water to drink, regular medical care, and
> an owner to take care of them & love them, prices have to be paid. i don't
> think my cats hate the price (declawing) they paid for a home. they seem
> very happy to me. and they would never leave with someone else. that someone
> else would have to come into my yard & take them. they wouldn't go
> willingly.
>
> there's no end of people who try to draw the lines for the whole world. now
> that's selfish & self-centered.
>

Everyone thinks their opinion is right. That's why it's their opinion.
Deal with it.

I think you are selfish for declawing your cats. What do you care?
You've never even met me. The point is, you implied that people are
selfish for keeping their cats inside. How's it feel to have that be
turned on you? Guess what - those of us who keep our cats in don't think
we're selfish, either.

It's my opinion, my world view, whatever you'd like to call it. I am
entitled. Just as you are entitled to yours. And we are both allowed to
think the other is wrong. Whoop-di-f'en-do.
I have the RIGHT to an opinion. So do you. When someone else's is
different from yours, they are allowed to say so. Deal with it.

-------------------------------------------------
~kaeli~
The secret of the universe is @*&^^^ NO CARRIER
The more ridiculous a belief system, the higher
the probability of its success.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
-------------------------------------------------

Arjun Ray

August 7th 03, 04:14 AM

In >, "bewtifulfreak"
> wrote:

| Regardless of the rules apparently set down by some apparently supreme
| beings,

Ponderous sarcasm aside, this was about conventions: customs and usages.
Not about rules. That's a strawman.

| I don't think there is anything wrong with top posting, providing
| your comments are self-contained.

Then don't quote at all. That's what happens when new topics are
started. There's a new Subject header and no Reference headers. Brand
new context.

| It's merely a way of giving those who haven't been following the
| conversation the option of reviewing,

No, it is not. This is not cover-your-ass corporate memoing, where it
might be prudent to attach a proof of receipt.

The purpose of quoting is to establish the context of your followup.
Communication on usenet is all about context. Threads are ongoing
conversations with many participants. You shouldn't assume that your
prose is immortal, good enough to stand on its own, or that you will
have the Last Word On The Subject. There will always be a next poster,
and there will always be people who will find contextual cues helpful.

And wonder of wonders, it's all made possible by this electronic medium,
to *interleave* ones commentary with what has come before, so that
everything can be read in its correct context. No one has to figure out
what you might be talking about by going elsewhere and poring over a
whole bunch of irrelevant material to find the cue. Instead, the
correct context is right there, in logical and chronological sequence.
People who want to follow up can simply delete irrelevant material and
interleave their own. It's a participatory and ongoing system that with
due care works for *everybody*.

Except when top-posters **** it all up for their own ignorant "reasons",
more on which below.

| I dislike having to scroll through the same huge post a thousand times
| just to read the response at the bottom

Deleting irrelevant material is an important part of communicating
effectively. In fact, quoting too much is the essence of the problem
that top posting only makes even worse. There is almost never a reason,
let alone a good one, to quote comprehensively.

(Never mind that what Outlook Express users mindlessly leave hanging off
the end of their posts, is some linewrap mangled totally unnreadable
mishmash that no one could make sense of even if they *tried* to.)

| So, while I do think we should all try to post with a sense of nettiquette,

That's part of the problem too. A lot of newcomers to the net have
absolutely no idea that there is such a thing as netiquette, or that the
internet could have existed long enough before they got here to have
evolved *working* customs and usages that it might, just might, have
been courteous of them to at least find out about. This is the "Ugly
American" syndrome writ large - an atttitude that anything one doesn't
know already is not worth finding out about, never mind adopting, even
out of common courtesy.

| live and let live.

Sure, in a killfile.

Top-posters got into the habit because as newbies they didn't know
enough to distinguish good software from bad. They just used a program
that came preinstalled on their computer, and when that program made
top-posting the *easiest* thing to do (thanks to a cursor on a blank
line at the top), they just fell into that "flow".

Only later, when they find out that their "style" makes them look silly
(sort of like walking in public with ones fly open), they cope with the
embarassment with denial and bluster, a bunch of bull about how they
"like it this way" and how it suits their oh so important sense of being
an individual and so on and so forth.

The fact of the matter is that people who can't be bothered to put their
remarks in context aren't worth reading anyway.

Because usenet is all about context.

--
Netiquette Pointers:
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
http://www.digital-web.com/tutorials/tutorial_1999-12.shtml
http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

DeAnna

August 7th 03, 05:23 AM

Killfile away.

:)

I don't killfile anyone, because everyone has something important to say at one point or
another.

But the newsreader presents the top of the post visibly first, and it makes no sense to me
to have to dredge through a ton of "conversation" I have already read, to get to that one
tiny "LOL" or "I agree! Signed Joe Schmoe". I could never figure the point behind it,
except some people are doing it because it is what they have always done?

Quoting often makes no sense to me, because what is quoted is often snipped beyond
recognition, and if you don't have all the thread downloaded, you have to keep going back
for more headers until you do. It is much simpler to me to just jump to the bottom-most
post, and read back through the latest post to catch up on what was said. In the longest
thread on my newsgroups, it was only 2KB for the bottom most posts of these "bandwidth"
and "hard drive space" "wasters". I see a lot more bandwidth and hard drive space wasted
on sheer verbosity in some self-righteous top-posting, "my newsreader is better than
yours" sermons. And I don't have problems with excessive spool file size to contain the
newsgroups, even though I don't expire the posts, and there are posts dating back over a
year.

All my newsgroups contain mostly top posters, and we have a couple that bottom post, and
everyone complains, because it simply seems like a waste of time, wading through what THAT
person deemed fit to regurgitate, even though it had all been read before. Since I have to
read ALL posts, in order to admin, it is MUCH simpler if I open the post and INSTANTLY see
what that person said, saving me scrolling and sorting, instead of trying to figure out if
a violation of our Code of Conduct was directly from that poster, or was a snip cut and
paste quote from a post before. If you are that worried about post sizes, snip it all.
But then again, if the posts get mis-grouped somehow, it makes it hard to figure out where
they fit in. And my groups users range from OE newreader users to Forte Agent, XNews, and
Gravity users.

I think accusations of poor "netiquette" could equally be tossed out against people who do
nothing but criticize other people's every perceived mistake. That doesn't seem like good
etiquette online, or offline, to this gentle reader.

Just my .01 female opinion, of course.

D.

bewtifulfreak

August 7th 03, 05:38 AM

"DeAnna" > wrote in message
...
> Killfile away.
>
> :)

<DeAnna's well-written rebuttal snipped for saving of space and ease of
reading>

Now I feel like a right wimp for caving, LOL, but that is my people-pleasing
side, and the ease with which I can be made to feel wrong. Really, though,
I don't care how I post, I'm happy to snip and bottom post if that is the
preference (and I don't know what the preference is, really, because only
two people have expressed their opinions so far, and they're both
different!), though I, too, don't give a rat's ass if anyone wants to go
ahead and killfile me. I'm as polite as can be, even when I strongly
disagree with someone, and, to me, that's the part of netiquette that counts
the most, and I see from your post that you agree.

As far as reading, though, again, I'm with you, DeAnna; I actually prefer
reading top posts, as I see the message right away, so whether I've followed
the thread or not, I get the gist right off. Then, if I haven't seen the
previous or original message and don't get enough of an idea from the
current message, I can always go over the quoted text and see what I've
missed (and, like you said, you can often read a good portion of a thread in
one post by reading the bottom-most post with the quotes at the bottom).
But I guess because my preference is not within the conventions that have
been set up, I am stuck with accepting others' prefered style of reading,
except for when someone else is as incourteous as I am. ;)

Ann

Arjun Ray

August 7th 03, 06:17 AM

In >, "bewtifulfreak"
> wrote:
| "Arjun Ray" > wrote in message
| ...

| I realize courtesy is important, I just think you're making the whole
| posting method thing sound vastly more important than it is.

Hardly. I killfile inveterate top-posters as not worth reading. End of
story.

| I tend to find your blatant personal attacks on those you disagree with
| just as lacking in courtesy,

Animal abusers get no courtesy from me, sorry.

| And, for the record, I don't think my words are end all be all,

I'm not sure what brought this up. Top-posted material is necessarily
out of context (you used the phrase "self-contained"). It gets a "be
all end all" air from the fact that the poster didn't even care about
context. Isolated, free-standing - thus irrelevant and ignorable.

| but if a subject header asks for support for something specific, and
| you post your support, I didn't think I needed to post the initial
| message, but just left it 'just in case'.

Am I correct to think that you meant to write "and I post my support"?

| I realize now that, in the interest of following 'protocol' [...] I
| would be better off just quoting a snip of the support request,

Or summarizing it with suitable editing. Various methods are covered
here:

http://www.digital-web.com/tutorials/tutorial_1999-12.shtml

| I just made an incorrect assumption about what was acceptable, as top
| posting is so commonly done,

Of late, yes. Thanks to millions of newbies unleashed on usenet with
bozoware like Outlook Express. Top-posting was unknown when most people
used competent software.

bewtifulfreak

August 7th 03, 06:43 AM

"Arjun Ray" > wrote in message
...
> In >, "bewtifulfreak"
> > wrote:
> | "Arjun Ray" > wrote in message
> | ...
>
> | I realize courtesy is important, I just think you're making the whole
> | posting method thing sound vastly more important than it is.
>
> Hardly. I killfile inveterate top-posters as not worth reading. End of
> story.

As is your right.

> | I tend to find your blatant personal attacks on those you disagree with
> | just as lacking in courtesy,
>
> Animal abusers get no courtesy from me, sorry.

I think you're very quick to judge someone as an animal abuser without
knowing all the facts (and I'm not just talking about declawing, which I
agree is abusive).

> | And, for the record, I don't think my words are end all be all,
>
> I'm not sure what brought this up.

Your quote:

> You shouldn't assume that your prose is immortal, good enough to stand on
its own, or that you will have the Last Word On The Subject.

This is what brought that up.

Top-posted material is necessarily
> out of context (you used the phrase "self-contained"). It gets a "be
> all end all" air from the fact that the poster didn't even care about
> context. Isolated, free-standing - thus irrelevant and ignorable.

In certain cases, it is free-standing; the context is the header (as in the
support example).

> | but if a subject header asks for support for something specific, and
> | you post your support, I didn't think I needed to post the initial
> | message, but just left it 'just in case'.
>
> Am I correct to think that you meant to write "and I post my support"?

See, now you're just pointing out petty, pedantic grammar mistakes; I didn't
realize that, not only am I expected to post to a predetermined standard,
but I'm expected to do so with flawless grammar. Actually, I meant the
'general' you, as in anyone who did this, not 'you' Arjun. I could also
have said 'I', yes, but I think most people could get the gist of what I
meant. These are conversational newsgroup posts we're writing, not news
articles; if you want a job as an editor, contact a newspaper or publishing
house.

> | I just made an incorrect assumption about what was acceptable, as top
> | posting is so commonly done,
>
> Of late, yes. Thanks to millions of newbies unleashed on usenet with
> bozoware like Outlook Express. Top-posting was unknown when most people
> used competent software.

Complain to Bill Gates on that one; I use what comes with my browser.
However, if you'd like to recommend some superior-ware, by all means, do so.
You've already told everyone how to post, why not tell us what to use to do
it?

Ann

Arjun Ray

August 7th 03, 06:52 AM

In >, "DeAnna"
> wrote, in cinemascope:

| I could never figure the point behind [reams and reams of quotage],

There isn't any.

| except some people are doing it because it is what they have always
| done?

Exactly right, they never learned any better.

| Quoting often makes no sense to me, because what is quoted is often
| snipped beyond recognition,

Where? Weren't you just now pointing out the annoyance of having to
scroll through scads of quoted material?

| and if you don't have all the thread downloaded, you have to keep
| going back for more headers until you do.

That's a failing of your "choice" of software. (Actually, Micro$oft
would turn around and accuse you of not "configuring it properly"). Go
to Tools -> Options -> Read, and uncheck the box that says "Get ____
headers at a time".

| And I don't have problems with excessive spool file size to contain
| the newsgroups, even though I don't expire the posts, and there are
| posts dating back over a year.

Bandwidth is an issue for servers, not your hard disk.

| Since I have to read ALL posts, in order to admin,

Admin? Usenet newsgroups are not administered. Some may be moderated,
but newsadmins (those who run servers) generally don't monitor specific
newsgroups in any official capacity.

| it is MUCH simpler if I open the post and INSTANTLY see what that
| person said, saving me scrolling and sorting, instead of trying to
| figure out if a violation of our Code of Conduct was directly from
| that poster, or was a snip cut and paste quote from a post before. If
| you are that worried about post sizes, snip it all. But then again,
| if the posts get mis-grouped somehow, it makes it hard to figure out
| where they fit in. And my groups users range from OE newreader users
| to Forte Agent, XNews, and Gravity users.

Code of Conduct? "Misgrouped somehow"? "My groups"? Seriously, what
*are* you talking about?

bewtifulfreak

August 7th 03, 07:21 AM

"Arjun Ray" > wrote in message
...
> In >, "bewtifulfreak"
> > wrote:
> | "Arjun Ray" > wrote in message
> |
>
> |> Animal abusers get no courtesy from me, sorry.
> |
> | I think you're very quick to judge someone as an animal abuser without
> | knowing all the facts
>
> If you're talking about Barbara Peale, Google is your friend:

I wasn't, actually.

> | In certain cases, [top-posted material] is free-standing; the context
> | is the header (as in the support example).
>
> Then *delete* the message body instead of hanging it off the end. The
> basic idea is still the same: remove irrelevant material. What you
> still haven't provided a coherent argument for is what some people call
> "jeopardy style" (where the answer precedes the question).

I did explain my reasoning, but you obviously disagree with it. Fair
enough.

> | See, now you're just pointing out petty, pedantic grammar mistakes;
>
> No, I was wondering if you left something out in alluding to something I
> had posted.

Fair enough.

> |> Top-posting was unknown when most people used competent software.
> |
> | Complain to Bill Gates on that one;
>
> Pointless: Micro$oft supports and encourages top-posting for the obvious
> benefits to cover-your-ass corporate memoing.

> | I use what comes with my browser.
>
> Usenet is not an adjunct of the WWW.

No, but I prefer to get my newsgroups along with my mail. I will explore
the other options you've linked to, but most of the stand-alone newsreaders
I've tried seemed far more complex than I wanted to bother with.

Ann

Arjun Ray

August 7th 03, 08:51 AM

In >, "bewtifulfreak"
> wrote:
| "Arjun Ray" > wrote in message
|

|> If you're talking about Barbara Peale, Google is your friend:
|
| I wasn't, actually.

Sorry, I assumed you were. I suppose I should add, then, that animal
abusers aren't the only ones who don't get courtesy from me.

|> What you still haven't provided a coherent argument for is what some
|> people call "jeopardy style" (where the answer precedes the question).
|
| I did explain my reasoning, but you obviously disagree with it. Fair
| enough.

Have you read all the links at the allmyfaqs.com wiki?

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

It's telling that no one has added to the wiki anything in favor of TOFU
(a term coined in the de.* hierarchy: "Text Oben, FullQuote Unten")

|>| I use what comes with my browser.
|>
|> Usenet is not an adjunct of the WWW.
|
| No, but I prefer to get my newsgroups along with my mail.

Mail isn't an adjunct of the WWW either, so I still don't see what a
browser has to do with it. ;-)

| I will explore the other options you've linked to, but most of the
| stand-alone newsreaders I've tried seemed far more complex than I
| wanted to bother with.

I think you should have said "less familiar". OE's inteface is far from
"simple"; in fact, it can be stupefyingly misleading (due, of course, to
the fact that the designers and programmers hadn't the first clue about
usenet). Defective software may explain, but does not excuse - much
less justify - poor posting practices. And, unfortunately, most people
make heavy weather of admitting gaffes (such, as in this context, having
been led up the garden path by OE's posting interface.)

Mogie

August 7th 03, 11:26 PM

Bob is just a grouchy old man who thinks he knows everything and likes to
let us know that.

He's pretty clueless and life is better when he's ignored.

DeAnna > wrote in message
...
> This man surely can't be a DVM.
>
> If he is, I am glad to live in America.
>
> Recommending leaving cats outdoors to benefit their immune system?
Claiming to be a
> champion for the right to toss cats out of doors to be left at the mercy
of the elements,
> in the name of a 'full life'.....
>
> LOL
>
> Sheesh.
>
> D.
>
> "Don Swenson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:57:45 +0100, Bob Brenchley.
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >On 29 Jul 2003 15:36:41 +1000, wrote:
> > >
> > >>In article >,
> > >>Bob Brenchley. > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >If you live in an area where, for whatever reason, you feel unable to
> > >allow a healthy cat its freedom to roam for at least some time each
> > >day (and only you can judge your area) then don't have a cat. To have
> > >a healthy cat, knowing you will keep it in 24/7 marks you are being
> > >cruel, selfish, or both.
> > >>
> >
> > Yeah, yeah, Bob. Can't you come up with a better line you little
> > ******? Not only are you a ******, but you're a liar too. Oh wait, I
> > forgot you're a DVM who is smarter than all of the other DVMs in the
> > world. My bad.
> >
> >
> > ***********************************************
> >
> > "Free-ranging cats in the United States have an average lifespan in
> > the general population of only 3 to 5 years; indoor cats have an
> > average lifespan of 12 years and frequently live longer than 20
> > years..."
> > (Karen L. Overall, M.A., V.M.D., Ph.D., Diplomate, American College
> > of Veterinary Behavior; Department of Clinical Studies School of
> > Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
> > Pennsylvania)
> >
> > "The hazards of the outdoors-automobiles, dogs, rival cats, poisonous
> > plants, infectious diseases, and fleas, to name but a few-are
> > compelling reasons to keep cats exclusively indoors."
> > (Dr. James Richards, Director, Cornell Feline Health Center,
> > College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York)
> >
> > "Cats can be happily kept inside all the time"
> > (Robert J. Holmes, BVM&S, PhD, MRCVS, FACVSc,
> > Cat Behavior and Training
> > Animal Behaviour Clinic, Malvern Vie 3 144, Australia)
>
>

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

DeAnna

August 8th 03, 05:08 AM

> That's a failing of your "choice" of software. (Actually, Micro$oft
> would turn around and accuse you of not "configuring it properly"). Go
> to Tools -> Options -> Read, and uncheck the box that says "Get ____
> headers at a time".

I have it set to 1000. But still there are times old headers and the messages are expired
at the server level. Then it doesn't matter if *my* choice of newsreader is configured
properly or not.
>
> | And I don't have problems with excessive spool file size to contain
> | the newsgroups, even though I don't expire the posts, and there are
> | posts dating back over a year.
>
> Bandwidth is an issue for servers, not your hard disk.

Hello? I was TALKING about my server. My newsgroups. My expire settings. This is all
server side, on my machine. Perhaps you missed that part.

>
> | Since I have to read ALL posts, in order to admin,
>
> Admin? Usenet newsgroups are not administered. Some may be moderated,
> but newsadmins (those who run servers) generally don't monitor specific
> newsgroups in any official capacity.

One more time... MY newsgroups. (The "newsadmin" (those who run MY server) is me). Yes,
they are 'administered'. I one of two admins, and I very strictly monitor all my groups
for violations of our code of conduct.

>
> | it is MUCH simpler if I open the post and INSTANTLY see what that
> | person said, saving me scrolling and sorting, instead of trying to
> | figure out if a violation of our Code of Conduct was directly from
> | that poster, or was a snip cut and paste quote from a post before. If
> | you are that worried about post sizes, snip it all. But then again,
> | if the posts get mis-grouped somehow, it makes it hard to figure out
> | where they fit in. And my groups users range from OE newreader users
> | to Forte Agent, XNews, and Gravity users.
>
> Code of Conduct? "Misgrouped somehow"? "My groups"? Seriously, what
> *are* you talking about?

*sigh*
A Code of Conduct is a set of rules, applying to how posters conduct themselves, in our
forums. Misgrouped, as in sometimes there is an error at the server (or perhaps client)
level, which causes the post to appear in a thread by itself (sometimes changing the
subject line causes this, sometimes if you post with the same subject that has previously
been used, it will group with those posts instead of the later thread....). My groups as
in the newsgroups I host on the server I own.

D.

DeAnna

August 8th 03, 05:09 AM

Thank you sir.

Perhaps I shall do that.

:)

D.

Arjun Ray

August 8th 03, 07:50 AM

In >, "DeAnna"
> wrote:

|> Go to Tools -> Options -> Read, and uncheck the box that says
|> "Get ____ headers at a time".
|
| I have it set to 1000.

A tip: this is a *non*-feature. The OE team misunderstood a feature
they tried to copy from other newsreaders, where you can "sample"
newsgroups - by looking at some number of recent headers - before
deciding whether to subscribe. For subscribed newsgroups, all you
really need in practice is a "catchup" option (which retrieves new
overview summaries, as usual, *and* marks them read.)

You should uncheck that box. It doesn't serve any constructive purpose
for subscribed newsgroups.

|> Bandwidth is an issue for servers, not your hard disk.
|
| Hello? I was TALKING about my server. My newsgroups. My expire settings.
| This is all server side, on my machine. Perhaps you missed that part.

Look, this is very simple. Running an NNTP server program on a computer
doesn't automatically make it part of usenet.

If you're running such server software to support *private* newsgroups
that no other server will carry, then those newgroups are not part of
usenet. You can do what you like, no one cares.

| One more time... MY newsgroups. (The "newsadmin" (those who run MY
| server) is me). Yes, they are 'administered'. I one of two admins,
| and I very strictly monitor all my groups for violations of our code
| of conduct.

So, what newsgroups are these? Do they appear on any *usenet* server?
No? Then, like I said, no one cares. Your problems, such as you
perceive them, are your own, and have absolutely no bearing on usenet
netiquette, which is what we have been talking about here. Or, at
least, I have.

It's like this. No one cares if you're a complete boor at your own
dinner table, but table manners are expected of you when you dine, say,
at a restaurant. That is, the cutting edge of any notion of "decorum"
applies in its public aspect, so that any discussion of table manners
is really relevant only to contexts where your behavior could matter to
others. What you like or permit or disallow at your own table in your
own private context is magnificently irrelevant.

|> Code of Conduct? "Misgrouped somehow"? "My groups"? Seriously, what
|> *are* you talking about?
|
| *sigh*

Obviously, you're very new to this.

| A Code of Conduct is a set of rules,

I know what it is. I was questioning the relevance. On *usenet*, there
are no censors, no nannies. Moderated newsgroups operate on a different
principle (articles are forwarded from the posting-host by mail to a
moderator who reposts it if it meets the group's criteria for relevance
or topicality.)

If you were a moderator - for a newsgroup carried on usenet by virtue of
a newgroup control message being honored - you would have known and used
the term, so what you're talking about is clearly *not* usenet.

| Misgrouped, as in sometimes there is an error at the server (or perhaps
| client) level, which causes the post to appear in a thread by itself

This is very confused. Threading is determined by the contents of the
References header in an article, if one exists. RFC 1036, Sec. 2.2.5:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1036.html

A server will carry the article in the newsgroups it recognizes among
those listed in the Newsgroups header of the article.

There is no *usenet* server software known which

(a) arbitrarily rewrites Newgroups headers in articles
(b) arbitrarily rewrites References headers in articles
(c) arbitrarily rewrites Subject headers in articles

There is no competent newsclient software that

(a) fails to include a References header for followups
(b) arbitrarily rewrites Subject headers in articles

AFAIK, Outlook Express manages to get (a) right, but it *does* fail on
(b). Specifically, if the Subject begins with a token consisting of up
to four alphabetic characters and then a colon, that token will be
removed from the Subject header in followups. Examples are Subjects
that start with "OT:" (for "Off-Topic") or "Attn:". The "reason" for
this is yet another non-feature: OE interprets all such tokens as
locale-specific alternates of the standard "Re:" and thus "helpfully"
replaces it with the poster's locale-specific variant.

Other than this known infelicity, I don't know of any server or client
"error" that you could be talking about.

| (sometimes changing the subject line causes this, sometimes if you
| post with the same subject that has previously been used, it will
| group with those posts instead of the later thread....).

What you *might* be talking about here is the user interface of some
newsclient software that does strange things in sorting articles for
display - for instance, automatically showing a new thread when the
Subject header changes in a followup (rather than doing this only at
user configuration option.)

The obvious solution is to get a competent newsreader.

But anyway, if you have the "authority" to arbitrarily rewrite headers
in an attempt to fix things, then you're *not* talking about usenet.

| My groups as in the newsgroups I host on the server I own.

Like I said, no one cares about the rules for your private newsgroups.
Nor do they serve as a standard by which usenet conventions ought to be
judged. That would be just too outragesous a manifestation of the "Ugly
American" syndrome that so many newbies these days seem to have.

--
NETSCAPISM /net-'sca-,pi-z*m/ n (1995): habitual diversion of the mind
to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from
the realization that the Internet was built by and for someone else.
-- Erik Naggum

DeAnna

August 8th 03, 02:49 PM

> A tip: this is a *non*-feature. The OE team misunderstood a feature
> they tried to copy from other newsreaders, where you can "sample"
> newsgroups - by looking at some number of recent headers - before
> deciding whether to subscribe. For subscribed newsgroups, all you
> really need in practice is a "catchup" option (which retrieves new
> overview summaries, as usual, *and* marks them read.)

Sorry, the catchup option marks the articles as read BEFORE downloading. The articles are
then not downloaded unless the entire group is reset.

> You should uncheck that box. It doesn't serve any constructive purpose
> for subscribed newsgroups.

I am not sure what purpose you think un-checking that box serves.

> Look, this is very simple. Running an NNTP server program on a computer
> doesn't automatically make it part of usenet.

I did not say it was "part" of usenet. They are *PRIVATE* newsgroups, specific to a
certain group of users, who share a common interest.

>
> If you're running such server software to support *private* newsgroups
> that no other server will carry, then those newgroups are not part of
> usenet. You can do what you like, no one cares.

There are still the sanctimonious, self-righteous bottom posters who think they have the
duty to preach their sermons...

> So, what newsgroups are these? Do they appear on any *usenet* server?
> No? Then, like I said, no one cares. Your problems, such as you
> perceive them, are your own, and have absolutely no bearing on usenet
> netiquette, which is what we have been talking about here. Or, at
> least, I have.

"Posting netiquette" is posting netiquette. You still have users whether you run private
groups exclusive to 300 individuals, or public feeds that anyone can subscribe to. Many
readers do not care whether the newsgroup they post on is fed to another server or not,
they still want it to operate the way they want it to, with everyone bottom posting, as
they loosely lump any NNTP server as a "usenet" server, even though they aren't. I am
thankful that the ones in my group are a very small segment of the population, although
they are very vocal about criticizing other people. Perhaps they have nothing better to
do.

> It's like this. No one cares if you're a complete boor at your own
> dinner table, but table manners are expected of you when you dine, say,
> at a restaurant. That is, the cutting edge of any notion of "decorum"
> applies in its public aspect, so that any discussion of table manners
> is really relevant only to contexts where your behavior could matter to
> others. What you like or permit or disallow at your own table in your
> own private context is magnificently irrelevant.

That depends on if you have 300 guests at your dinner table. Then people DO care.

> Obviously, you're very new to this.

Obviously not.

> | A Code of Conduct is a set of rules,
>
> I know what it is. I was questioning the relevance. On *usenet*, there
> are no censors, no nannies. Moderated newsgroups operate on a different
> principle (articles are forwarded from the posting-host by mail to a
> moderator who reposts it if it meets the group's criteria for relevance
> or topicality.)
>
> If you were a moderator - for a newsgroup carried on usenet by virtue of
> a newgroup control message being honored - you would have known and used
> the term, so what you're talking about is clearly *not* usenet.

We don't have control groups. :) And again.. NO we are not usenet. We are a group of
private newsgroups, run for a specific group.

>
> | Misgrouped, as in sometimes there is an error at the server (or perhaps
> | client) level, which causes the post to appear in a thread by itself

Case in point, the group microsoft.public.games.zone.fighterace had a server glitch that
was causing it to send mixed up headers with the posts. A subject and From would appear,
and you open the post and see something entirely different, from someone else. It was a
server side error, because it was experienced by many different people, using different
newsreaders.

> Other than this known infelicity, I don't know of any server or client
> "error" that you could be talking about.
>

>
> What you *might* be talking about here is the user interface of some
> newsclient software that does strange things in sorting articles for
> display - for instance, automatically showing a new thread when the
> Subject header changes in a followup (rather than doing this only at
> user configuration option.)

That would be the SECOND reference (at the client level) I referred to. I am glad you
caught on.

"Ugly
> American" syndrome that so many newbies these days seem to have.

Ahh... that comment explains a lot about your self-righteous attitude.

D.

Arjun Ray

August 8th 03, 08:05 PM

In >, "DeAnna"
> wrote:

| Sorry, the catchup option marks the articles as read BEFORE downloading.

No, that's in "online" readers only (such as those which work with a
newsrc file and don't maintain a local copy of the overview.)

| The articles are then not downloaded unless the entire group is reset.

No articles are downloaded unless the user asks for them. The XOVER
verb retrieves only the headers listed in the server's overview.fmt
database. Readers with offline capabilities maintain full copies for
subscribed newsgroups (except, of course, for gaps due to articles
having been expired in the newsspool.)

| I am not sure what purpose you think un-checking that box serves.

You complained about having to fetch multiple times. It's a problem of
your own making.

|> Look, this is very simple. Running an NNTP server program on a computer
|> doesn't automatically make it part of usenet.
|
| I did not say it was "part" of usenet.

Precisely the point here. Usenet discussions are all about *context*.
The context was usenet netiquette. Your disquisition on the travails of
"administering" a private server was irrelevant.

| "Posting netiquette" is posting netiquette. You still have users whether
| you run private groups exclusive to 300 individuals, or public feeds that
| anyone can subscribe to.

Whether usenet netiquette is even wanted in private arrangements is the
private server's business. No one cares.

| Many readers do not care whether the newsgroup they post on is fed to
| another server or not, they still want it to operate the way they want it
| to,

You are confusing a user interface with how a system works.

| with everyone bottom posting, as they loosely lump any NNTP server as
| a "usenet" server, even though they aren't.

Ignorance is not a defence, much less a justification.

Mature newsreader software automatically subscribes to the newsgroups
listed in a "LIST SUBSCRIPTIONS" transaction. That gives newcomers
immediate, painless access to news.newusers.questions and other such
groups with useful FAQ-type recurrent posts. If the software doesn't,
then it needs to have been written cluefully enough to protect newbies
from themselves.

What we're seeing today is newbies "learning" about newsgroups from
bozoware. You can call this "progress", I don't.

|> What you like or permit or disallow at your own table in your own
| private context is magnificently irrelevant.
|
| That depends on if you have 300 guests at your dinner table. Then
| people DO care.

It doesn't matter if they do. The rules (or lack thereof) for your own
table are yours. This discussion is about consensus in the absence of
rules. You can inform yourself about that consensus, or you can pretend
that it doesn't exist, or you can insist that you are exempt.

|> Obviously, you're very new to this.
|
| Obviously not.

Obviously yes, since you thought rules for private newsgroups were
"relevant" for usenet.

|>| Misgrouped, as in sometimes there is an error at the server (or perhaps
|>| client) level, which causes the post to appear in a thread by itself
|
| Case in point, the group microsoft.public.games.zone.fighterace had a
| server glitch that was causing it to send mixed up headers with the
| posts. A subject and From would appear, and you open the post and see
| something entirely different, from someone else. It was a server side
| error,

An overview database out of synch, in the particular server, solved by a
reindexing. Other servers carrying the newsgroup would not have been
affected. If your server is prone to this problem, you need better
server software. :-)

[This particular synching problem can happen in the CNews distribution
if the server is configured to honor Supersedes. Last I knew, the bug
wasn't fixed because Supersedes are not honored much these days, due to
systematic abuse by rogue cancellers.]

|> "Ugly American" syndrome that so many newbies these days seem to have.
|
| Ahh... that comment explains a lot about your self-righteous attitude.

No, disappointment that people need to get defensive and struggle to
dredge up excuses. the fact of the matter is that newbies started top
posting only because that's what was easy in the Outlook Express that
came preinstalled on their computer. It's hard to unlearn bad habits.

Note that in this thread, you interleaved your remarks, for which I
thank you. You snipped, and you put your remarks in context. Now
consider this. What does interleaving look like when there is only one
passage of quoted context?

So-called "bottom posting" is just a special case of the *general*
style. ;-)

--
It's the things you know that just aint so.

DeAnna

August 9th 03, 06:13 PM

> That's the point. No one on *usenet* cares what the rules are or aren't
> on your private server. Those rules are irrelevant to practices and
> usages on usenet.

As I said before, we were discussing posting styles. I am referring to posting style
across any NNTP or email type discussion list. You are the one who won't get off your
"Usenet" high horse. (And for being such a sanctimonious expert on Usenet, you'd think
you'd know enough to capitalize it.)

> I was waiting for the "oh but we're so MODERN now!" shtick. Have these
> self-congratulatory worthies read this:
>
> http://www.digital-web.com/tutorials/tutorial_1999-12.shtml

Hmm... seems this guy is referring to EMAIL lists, not USENET? LOL. Not as much of a
harpie as you are, I see?

> Actually, it's top posters who have ADD. They can't keep context even
> if they tried, and they don't care anyway. It shows.

You must have very severe ADD if you cannot follow the logic here. People who top post
general read the posts and often even DAYS after, need only to see the current posters
thoughts in order to follow the conversation. It is much more typical of ADD (Attention
Deficit Disorder) to forget what you just read and be forced to re-read it to comprehend.

> | Tell me, when you talk with someone, do you first repeat what they
> | had to say, while making cute little "quote" signs with your fingers,
>
> No, we talk about things one at a time. A conversation is not a formal
> debates where everyone gets a chance to deliver a monologue.

Perhaps YOUR conversations aren't. If you have tact and manners, you allow other people
their say before interrupting them, hence a conversation is essentially people stating
their opinion, which would be monologue (as long as some boor doesn't butt in).

> Electronic conversation allows simultaneity of topics, and interleaving
> is what *allows* such parallelism with minimal to nonexistent confusion.

> It's all about context.

ANY conversation can allow simultaneity of topics. Perhaps you should try conversing with
folks who have the intelligence to carry on a multi-tiered conversation. Or perhaps it is
that ADD showing symptoms again, and you must carry on a one-track discussion with a
one-track mind?

> I'm in no great rush to say what I want to say. If it isn't in context,
> I won't say anything at all.

You seem to have a lot to say, which isn't in context. Your original attack on a poster in
a cat forum was out of context, for the purpose of insulting her choice of posting styles.

> You sound as if you have an exaggerated sense of the importance of what
> YOU want to say. The "Me first! Me! Me!! Me!!!" urge is typical.

It has nothing to do with importance. I prefer to read when OTHERS top post. I want to see
what THAT post says, NOT a series of regurgitations from the entire thread which I already
read.

> Oh, but it is, your attempts to drop context notwithstanding.
I see your exaggerated sense of self importance leads you to believe that you should
control the entire gist of a discussion. My point is on POST STYLES. Not explicitly Usenet
posting style, but email discussion lists, and private forums, which all operate on very
similar premises. Don't believe me? Read the article at the link YOU provided in an
attempt to support your lame POV.

> | It is about the redundancy of bottom posting, with quotage and snippage.
>
> Huh!?
>
> *Not* snipping is *not* redundant? Leaving a mishmash of hundreds of
> mangled lines hanging off the end of a post is *not* redundant?

The point being, you don't have to SCROLL the mismash IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, in order to
get to the 'meat' of the post. You can read down if you NEED to, but you aren't forced to,
by virtue of having to "find" the new content of the current post.

> If you're arguing that there should be no quoting *at all*, then by all
> means put that belief into practice. Go to Tools -> Options -> Send,
> and uncheck the box that says "Include message in reply".

I don't argue that either. I just think people should be free to post as they like. I have
to read through patchwork snip, chop, copy and paste bottom-posting, interleaved
conversations. Why do the bottom posters always whine about reading top posts? If you
don't like it KMA.

> If you think usenet is about serial monologues, then you're definitely
> in the wrong place. You should be on an IRC channel, where you can toss
> your two cents into the amorphous stream scrolling by.

No, because Usenet is structured in threads. IRC is not structured, with each message
inserted upon its order of being received at the server. Why do you think messages are
"grouped" by threads?

> I didn't say it did. Can you read? Do you understand the word "if"?

It reeks of insinuation.

> So how did it even affect you, unless you were pointing your client at
> Microsoft's server? Any other server carrying the newsgroup would not
> have had the problem.

Sorry to tell you, but it affected everyone, many who subscribed through their ISP
servers.

> In fact, I assumed that it probably *didn't* affect you; that you were
> just giving an example of a "server error". Which is why I pointed out
> that the example was a problem in indexing on a particular server, not a
> problem with the newsgroup at large (all over usenet). However, since
> this was in the context of what you described you had to watch for on
> your private server, there was the *possibility* that you had had the
> problem yourself. Hence my "if".

Yes it *did* affect me, as a subscriber. And not it was not something that happened on my
server. I was merely making a point that sometimes threads get garbled, either by the
client, or at the server level, and yes, even on Usenet.

> | There you go again, judging someone's preference as a "bad habit".
>
> It's a bad habit. That they might "prefer" it is irrelevant.

Well, I will take my bad habit of posting in an efficient manner over your bad habit of
posting in an archaic style, and your bad manners, any day.

> Why don't you just say that you can't be bothered to *edit* your posts?
What is the point? To cost me more time in composing, and cost the reader more time in
reading? Gee, that is intelligent! Not!

> All these lame excuses, when your essential point was...
So what is your lame excuse? "Well this is the way the people who formed Usenet did it way
back when......" You know, cavemen at their meat raw, before fire, but that doesn't mean
it is the best way to enjoy your steak.

> | And it was a huge PITA, and took three times as long as simply typing
> | what I had to say, and hitting send,
>
> ...this.
> Such a rush to get in what YOU wanted to say, the hell with everything
> else.
Actually, I prefer top-posting because it is faster to READ and COMPREHEND, for those of
us who don't have ADD and have already read and digested the previous contents of the
thread.

> | but as a matter of being considerate,
> Lost on you, apparently.

You wouldn't know the definition of considerate if it nipped you in the arse.

> | as I said, when in Rome....
>
> Don't bother, really.

As I said, in my second reply to you -sorry, in the throes of your ADD, that hasn't been
quoted since the post, so allow me to regurgitate it for you:

>Killfile away.
>
>:)

I am thankful of one thing, there are no sanctimonious, self-righteous boors such as you
that visit my groups. :)

Even my ardent bottom posters have manners.

D.