PDA

View Full Version : Outdoor vs Indoor Cats Again!


GovtLawyer
January 4th 04, 05:02 PM
I've followed this debate in many threads across several groups, and there is
one point I have not seen raised.

30 years ago I was coming home from my night job at 4 AM and while walking in
the street (NYC) a dozen blocks from my home, I came across a really friendly
orange tabby. He kept coming up to me and I would walk away, and he would come
back. He was most friendly, obviously people oriented, and in my opinion he
was a housecat who for some reason had been displaced from his house. I took
him home and named him ECO, or ECHO, Eco, short for economics, because I wasn't
sure I could afford to keep him; and, ECHO, because he kept coming back.

Once at my home, Eco seemed restless and he often tried to go out the window to
the fireescape. Once, he jumped across an open window to the windowsill across
an open airshaft. He was stuck there on the ledge and I had to go to the
building next door to bring him in. A couple of weeks later, on Thanksgiving,
1974, my younger brother brought me a kitten, which I named Turkey (after all
it was Thanksgiving). Turkey and Eco lived together for one week before Eco
managed to squeeze through a small opening in the fire escape window, and he
disappeared.

Why am I telling you this? Well, I think Echo was someone's cat from a half
mile away, and I, out of good nature, took him to my home. What was Eco's
original owner thinking when he never returned as he usually did? Why did I
take him if that is what I thought? Well, it is because I didn't know. Maybe
Eco was lost, and needed someone to care for him, he certainly latched on to
me. What happened to him? He certainly wasn't familiar with the new
neighborhood he found himself in.

One of the main reasons I would never let my cat (MY PET, MY COMPANION) out, is
because one day he may not return And, it might not be because he or she was a
victim of a tragedy; perhaps someone like me took him for his own. I'd never
know. I would be left with photos on handbills taped to lamppoles with a LOST
CAT headline.

I think pet owners should understand the difference between wild, feral
animals, and domesticated ones. Our pets need our protection more than they
need to be allowed to roam around at will.

Just my two cents. If you want to see my most recent additions, follow this
link to Mickey & Daisy.

http://hometown.aol.com/borninthebronx/index.html

Bob Brenchley.
January 5th 04, 12:56 AM
On 04 Jan 2004 16:02:56 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

>I think pet owners should understand the difference between wild, feral
>animals, and domesticated ones. Our pets need our protection more than they
>need to be allowed to roam around at will.
>
>Just my two cents.

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.
January 5th 04, 12:56 AM
On 04 Jan 2004 16:02:56 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

>I think pet owners should understand the difference between wild, feral
>animals, and domesticated ones. Our pets need our protection more than they
>need to be allowed to roam around at will.
>
>Just my two cents.

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.

Linda Terrell
January 5th 04, 01:01 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.


Liar!

LT

Linda Terrell
January 5th 04, 01:01 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.


Liar!

LT

GovtLawyer
January 5th 04, 02:33 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.


I'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish. I have decided to take an
animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service) and
keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in short .
.. . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
against their will.

In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat in
the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them in
better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or cooler
than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away from
predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would like or
would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as they
would in the wild.

NO, I am certainly not cruel! Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they have
been doing it for a very long time. So, I have taken pets which are already on
this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of me to
let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives. It
would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
population of unwanted animals could explode.

So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me ask
you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

GovtLawyer
January 5th 04, 02:33 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.


I'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish. I have decided to take an
animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service) and
keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in short .
.. . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
against their will.

In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat in
the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them in
better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or cooler
than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away from
predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would like or
would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as they
would in the wild.

NO, I am certainly not cruel! Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they have
been doing it for a very long time. So, I have taken pets which are already on
this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of me to
let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives. It
would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
population of unwanted animals could explode.

So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me ask
you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

wumpygirl
January 5th 04, 05:26 AM
"GovtLawyer" > wrote in message
...
> >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'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish. I have decided to
take an
> animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service)
and
> keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
> great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in
short .
> . . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
> against their will.
>
> In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat
in
> the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them
in
> better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or
cooler
> than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away
from
> predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would
like or
> would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as
they
> would in the wild.

What does this have to do with cats being allowed to spend some time
outside?

> NO, I am certainly not cruel! Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
> keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they
have
> been doing it for a very long time. So, I have taken pets which are
already on
> this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of
me to
> let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives.
It
> would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
> night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
> population of unwanted animals could explode.

Sounds to me like you're just looking for an arguement.

> So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me
ask
> you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

Bob doesn't need to hunt for total ignorants like yourself.

Do you happen to be into fishing?

wumpygirl
January 5th 04, 05:26 AM
"GovtLawyer" > wrote in message
...
> >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'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish. I have decided to
take an
> animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service)
and
> keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
> great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in
short .
> . . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
> against their will.
>
> In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat
in
> the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them
in
> better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or
cooler
> than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away
from
> predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would
like or
> would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as
they
> would in the wild.

What does this have to do with cats being allowed to spend some time
outside?

> NO, I am certainly not cruel! Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
> keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they
have
> been doing it for a very long time. So, I have taken pets which are
already on
> this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of
me to
> let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives.
It
> would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
> night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
> population of unwanted animals could explode.

Sounds to me like you're just looking for an arguement.

> So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me
ask
> you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

Bob doesn't need to hunt for total ignorants like yourself.

Do you happen to be into fishing?

Luvskats00
January 5th 04, 06:15 AM
Don't feed the trolls..they have no brains..and logic is just an undefined word
in the dictionary.

Luvskats00
January 5th 04, 06:15 AM
Don't feed the trolls..they have no brains..and logic is just an undefined word
in the dictionary.

Linda Terrell
January 5th 04, 02:27 PM
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 04:26:35 UTC, "wumpygirl"
> wrote:

Hello Bob. Amusing yourself again, I see, by savaging
people who love their pets.

You must have quite a collection of First Stones.

LT

Linda Terrell
January 5th 04, 02:27 PM
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 04:26:35 UTC, "wumpygirl"
> wrote:

Hello Bob. Amusing yourself again, I see, by savaging
people who love their pets.

You must have quite a collection of First Stones.

LT

Linda Terrell
January 5th 04, 02:28 PM
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:33:57 UTC, (GovtLawyer)
wrote:

Ask Bob how many First Stones he owns.

LT

Linda Terrell
January 5th 04, 02:28 PM
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:33:57 UTC, (GovtLawyer)
wrote:

Ask Bob how many First Stones he owns.

LT

Bob Brenchley.
January 6th 04, 03:45 AM
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:01:59 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
> 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.
>
>
>Liar!
>
>LT

Oh do shut up you stupid, lying, animal abusing troll.

--
Bob.

I read your mind, and believe me, it was a short story...

Bob Brenchley.
January 6th 04, 03:45 AM
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:01:59 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
> 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.
>
>
>Liar!
>
>LT

Oh do shut up you stupid, lying, animal abusing troll.

--
Bob.

I read your mind, and believe me, it was a short story...

Bob Brenchley.
January 6th 04, 03:53 AM
On 05 Jan 2004 01:33:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) 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.
>
>
>I'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish.

Then please stop being selfish - it is not fair on the cats.

> I have decided to take an
>animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service) and
>keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
>great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in short .
>. . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
>against their will.

Sick.
>
>In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat in
>the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them in
>better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or cooler
>than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away from
>predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would like or
>would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as they
>would in the wild.

As they would in the wild - maybe. Average age in the wild would be
about 7. However, the average age of an indoor-outdoor cat is no
different than that of an indoor only cat -- it just seems like longer
for the poor imprisoned cat that is cut off from so much that it needs
in the outside world.
>
>NO, I am certainly not cruel!

Yes you are.

> Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
>keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they have
>been doing it for a very long time.

They have - and all over the world. And it is only really in the USA
that this abuse of animals is so widespread.

> So, I have taken pets which are already on
>this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of me to
>let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives. It
>would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
>night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
>population of unwanted animals could explode.
>
>So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me ask
>you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

I'm neither an outdoorsman nor a hunter - in fact I campaign against
hunting in nearly all its forms.

What I am is an animal lover, one that knows enough about cats to call
you a very sick and cruel individual - a very selfish person who gives
no though to the basic needs of his cats.

I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
to root out abusers like you.

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

Bob Brenchley.
January 6th 04, 03:53 AM
On 05 Jan 2004 01:33:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) 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.
>
>
>I'll agree to the selfish part. Yes, I am selfish.

Then please stop being selfish - it is not fair on the cats.

> I have decided to take an
>animal (in this case two homeless animals from an animal rescue service) and
>keep them locked in my home; for my own selfish amusement. They give me a
>great deal of enjoyment; they are funny, and warm, and friendly, and in short .
>. . just great to have around. I am keeping them captive, quite possibly
>against their will.

Sick.
>
>In return for their captivity;I feed them better than they would ever eat in
>the wild, I take them to an animal doctor on a regular basis and keep them in
>better health than they would have in the wild; I keep them warmer or cooler
>than they would be in the wild, depending on the season; I keep them away from
>predators bigger than they are; I buy products which I know they would like or
>would amuse themselves with; and, they will likely live twice as long as they
>would in the wild.

As they would in the wild - maybe. Average age in the wild would be
about 7. However, the average age of an indoor-outdoor cat is no
different than that of an indoor only cat -- it just seems like longer
for the poor imprisoned cat that is cut off from so much that it needs
in the outside world.
>
>NO, I am certainly not cruel!

Yes you are.

> Its funny, but I did not invent the idea of
>keeping pets. For all of my years people have kept pets; in fact, they have
>been doing it for a very long time.

They have - and all over the world. And it is only really in the USA
that this abuse of animals is so widespread.

> So, I have taken pets which are already on
>this earth and made the trade I've outlined above. It would be cruel of me to
>let them go out into the city at will, and invariably shorten their lives. It
>would also be doubley, no tripley cruel of me to allow them to go into the
>night and either get knocked up or do the same to another animal, so the
>population of unwanted animals could explode.
>
>So, now that you've taken the liberty to call me selfish and cruel, let me ask
>you a question. You sound like an outdoorsman! Do you hunt?

I'm neither an outdoorsman nor a hunter - in fact I campaign against
hunting in nearly all its forms.

What I am is an animal lover, one that knows enough about cats to call
you a very sick and cruel individual - a very selfish person who gives
no though to the basic needs of his cats.

I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
to root out abusers like you.

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

Bob Brenchley.
January 6th 04, 03:54 AM
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:27:55 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
> wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 04:26:35 UTC, "wumpygirl"
> wrote:
>
>Hello Bob. Amusing yourself again, I see, by savaging
>people who love their pets.
>
>You must have quite a collection of First Stones.
>
>LT
>
>
>
Do shut up you stupid animal abusing troll.

--
Bob.

I read your mind, and believe me, it was a short story...

Bob Brenchley.
January 6th 04, 03:54 AM
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:27:55 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
> wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 04:26:35 UTC, "wumpygirl"
> wrote:
>
>Hello Bob. Amusing yourself again, I see, by savaging
>people who love their pets.
>
>You must have quite a collection of First Stones.
>
>LT
>
>
>
Do shut up you stupid animal abusing troll.

--
Bob.

I read your mind, and believe me, it was a short story...

Linda Terrell
January 6th 04, 03:56 AM
> I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
> adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
> to root out abusers like you.
>

Liar.

Linda Terrell
January 6th 04, 03:56 AM
> I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
> adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
> to root out abusers like you.
>

Liar.

Luvskats00
January 6th 04, 08:26 AM
When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

Luvskats00
January 6th 04, 08:26 AM
When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

Bob Brenchley.
January 6th 04, 07:35 PM
On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

>When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
>outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
>thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
>again!

Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

Bob Brenchley.
January 6th 04, 07:35 PM
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:56:52 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
> wrote:

>
>> I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
>> adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
>> to root out abusers like you.
>>
>
>Liar.
>
>
You are - and a very sick trolling liar at that.

The FACT is that none of the UK's major shelters (Cats Protection,
RSPCA, Battersea) 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.

I know trolls have trouble with facts, so I can't expect you to
understand them, but those are the facts and even a sick promotor of
animal abuse like you will just have to learn to live with them.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
January 6th 04, 07:35 PM
On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

>When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
>outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
>thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
>again!

Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

Bob Brenchley.
January 6th 04, 07:35 PM
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:56:52 GMT, "Linda Terrell"
> wrote:

>
>> I'm glad to say that in the UK you would not have been allowed to
>> adopt cats from a shelter. We have home inspections that are designed
>> to root out abusers like you.
>>
>
>Liar.
>
>
You are - and a very sick trolling liar at that.

The FACT is that none of the UK's major shelters (Cats Protection,
RSPCA, Battersea) 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.

I know trolls have trouble with facts, so I can't expect you to
understand them, but those are the facts and even a sick promotor of
animal abuse like you will just have to learn to live with them.

--
Bob.

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

Ray Ban
January 6th 04, 11:44 PM
Bob Brenchley. > wrote in message >...
> On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:
>
> >When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
> >outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
> >thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
> >again!
>
> Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.

Ray Ban
January 6th 04, 11:44 PM
Bob Brenchley. > wrote in message >...
> On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:
>
> >When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
> >outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
> >thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
> >again!
>
> Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.

GovtLawyer
January 7th 04, 12:50 AM
>That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
>enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
>suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
>doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
>infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
>it works whether you like it or not.
>

Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
flying colors. They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

GovtLawyer
January 7th 04, 12:50 AM
>That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
>enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
>suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
>doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
>infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
>it works whether you like it or not.
>

Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
flying colors. They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

Ray Ban
January 7th 04, 06:09 AM
(GovtLawyer) wrote in message >...
> >That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
> >enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
> >suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
> >doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
> >infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
> >it works whether you like it or not.
> >
>
> Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
> have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
> any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
> animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
> to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
> flying colors. They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
> responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
> opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

Obviously, you didn't consult your pets whether they want to remain
purely indoor pets. You made the decision unilaterally. So, I argue
that you don't really care that they might suffer (mentally) as long
as you satisfy what you think is right, i.e., that they remain
indoors. You can be responsible and still let them outdoors by putting
them on a leash, in a backyard, if you have one, under supervision,
etc.

Ray Ban
January 7th 04, 06:09 AM
(GovtLawyer) wrote in message >...
> >That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
> >enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
> >suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
> >doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
> >infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
> >it works whether you like it or not.
> >
>
> Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
> have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
> any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
> animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
> to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
> flying colors. They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
> responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
> opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

Obviously, you didn't consult your pets whether they want to remain
purely indoor pets. You made the decision unilaterally. So, I argue
that you don't really care that they might suffer (mentally) as long
as you satisfy what you think is right, i.e., that they remain
indoors. You can be responsible and still let them outdoors by putting
them on a leash, in a backyard, if you have one, under supervision,
etc.

Bob Brenchley.
January 7th 04, 10:25 AM
On 6 Jan 2004 14:44:36 -0800, (Ray Ban) wrote:

>Bob Brenchley. > wrote in message >...
>> On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:
>>
>> >When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
>> >outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
>> >thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
>> >again!
>>
>> Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?
>
>That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
>enjoyment, self-gratification.

Not if it involves systematic cruelty.

>It's not important if the cat is
>suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
>doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
>infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
>it works whether you like it or not.

I'm glad to say that is NOT how it works.

--
Bob.

I think, therefore, I am... not related to you.

Bob Brenchley.
January 7th 04, 10:25 AM
On 6 Jan 2004 14:44:36 -0800, (Ray Ban) wrote:

>Bob Brenchley. > wrote in message >...
>> On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:
>>
>> >When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
>> >outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
>> >thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
>> >again!
>>
>> Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?
>
>That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
>enjoyment, self-gratification.

Not if it involves systematic cruelty.

>It's not important if the cat is
>suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
>doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
>infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
>it works whether you like it or not.

I'm glad to say that is NOT how it works.

--
Bob.

I think, therefore, I am... not related to you.

Bob Brenchley.
January 7th 04, 10:27 AM
On 06 Jan 2004 23:50:28 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

>>That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
>>enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
>>suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
>>doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
>>infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
>>it works whether you like it or not.
>>
>
>Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
>have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
>any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
>animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
>to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
>flying colors.

You failed - dismally - because you refused to look at the basic needs
of the cats. By ignoring their basic needs you have become an abuser.

> They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
>responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
>opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

You are either very deluded or very sick. I vote for sick.

--
Bob.

You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.

Bob Brenchley.
January 7th 04, 10:27 AM
On 06 Jan 2004 23:50:28 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

>>That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
>>enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
>>suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
>>doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
>>infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
>>it works whether you like it or not.
>>
>
>Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
>have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
>any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
>animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
>to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
>flying colors.

You failed - dismally - because you refused to look at the basic needs
of the cats. By ignoring their basic needs you have become an abuser.

> They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
>responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
>opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

You are either very deluded or very sick. I vote for sick.

--
Bob.

You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.

GovtLawyer
January 7th 04, 04:41 PM
>Obviously, you didn't consult your pets whether they want to remain
>purely indoor pets. You made the decision unilaterally. So, I argue
>that you don't really care that they might suffer (mentally) as long
>as you satisfy what you think is right, i.e., that they remain
>indoors. You can be responsible and still let them outdoors by putting
>them on a leash, in a backyard, if you have one, under supervision,
>etc.


No, I didn't consult with them. I took a look at them in a cage in a section
set up in a local PetCo for adopting cats. I made an intelligent guess that
they would probably prefer to have the run of my small aprtment then staying in
the cage.

As far as the outdoor thing, I live in the city. I have a problem with people
who let their cats roam around in the alleys and gardens in the middle of the
blocks and between the rears of apartments.

If I didn't make it clear, I am sorry. Of course, anyone who has a backyard
and wishes to tether a cat to a long leash in the backyard, would not be
considered an irresponsible owner in my opinion. I object to allowing a pet to
roam free where the owner loses contact and control over the pet.

GovtLawyer
January 7th 04, 04:41 PM
>Obviously, you didn't consult your pets whether they want to remain
>purely indoor pets. You made the decision unilaterally. So, I argue
>that you don't really care that they might suffer (mentally) as long
>as you satisfy what you think is right, i.e., that they remain
>indoors. You can be responsible and still let them outdoors by putting
>them on a leash, in a backyard, if you have one, under supervision,
>etc.


No, I didn't consult with them. I took a look at them in a cage in a section
set up in a local PetCo for adopting cats. I made an intelligent guess that
they would probably prefer to have the run of my small aprtment then staying in
the cage.

As far as the outdoor thing, I live in the city. I have a problem with people
who let their cats roam around in the alleys and gardens in the middle of the
blocks and between the rears of apartments.

If I didn't make it clear, I am sorry. Of course, anyone who has a backyard
and wishes to tether a cat to a long leash in the backyard, would not be
considered an irresponsible owner in my opinion. I object to allowing a pet to
roam free where the owner loses contact and control over the pet.

Bob Brenchley.
January 7th 04, 10:49 PM
On 07 Jan 2004 15:41:55 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

>>Obviously, you didn't consult your pets whether they want to remain
>>purely indoor pets. You made the decision unilaterally. So, I argue
>>that you don't really care that they might suffer (mentally) as long
>>as you satisfy what you think is right, i.e., that they remain
>>indoors. You can be responsible and still let them outdoors by putting
>>them on a leash, in a backyard, if you have one, under supervision,
>>etc.
>
>
>No, I didn't consult with them. I took a look at them in a cage in a section
>set up in a local PetCo for adopting cats. I made an intelligent guess that
>they would probably prefer to have the run of my small aprtment then staying in
>the cage.

You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
would have stood the chance of getting a proper home.
>
>As far as the outdoor thing, I live in the city. I have a problem with people
>who let their cats roam around in the alleys and gardens in the middle of the
>blocks and between the rears of apartments.
>
>If I didn't make it clear, I am sorry. Of course, anyone who has a backyard
>and wishes to tether a cat to a long leash in the backyard, would not be
>considered an irresponsible owner in my opinion.

The would be arrested in the UK, for animal cruelty. Even dogs cannot
be chained up like that any more.

> I object to allowing a pet to
>roam free where the owner loses contact and control over the pet.

Then don't have cats.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
January 7th 04, 10:49 PM
On 07 Jan 2004 15:41:55 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

>>Obviously, you didn't consult your pets whether they want to remain
>>purely indoor pets. You made the decision unilaterally. So, I argue
>>that you don't really care that they might suffer (mentally) as long
>>as you satisfy what you think is right, i.e., that they remain
>>indoors. You can be responsible and still let them outdoors by putting
>>them on a leash, in a backyard, if you have one, under supervision,
>>etc.
>
>
>No, I didn't consult with them. I took a look at them in a cage in a section
>set up in a local PetCo for adopting cats. I made an intelligent guess that
>they would probably prefer to have the run of my small aprtment then staying in
>the cage.

You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
would have stood the chance of getting a proper home.
>
>As far as the outdoor thing, I live in the city. I have a problem with people
>who let their cats roam around in the alleys and gardens in the middle of the
>blocks and between the rears of apartments.
>
>If I didn't make it clear, I am sorry. Of course, anyone who has a backyard
>and wishes to tether a cat to a long leash in the backyard, would not be
>considered an irresponsible owner in my opinion.

The would be arrested in the UK, for animal cruelty. Even dogs cannot
be chained up like that any more.

> I object to allowing a pet to
>roam free where the owner loses contact and control over the pet.

Then don't have cats.

--
Bob.

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

Luvskats00
January 8th 04, 01:37 AM
>You swapped one cage for >another. If you had not been so selfish they
>would have stood the chance of >getting a proper home.

Pssst ... don't show the world you're a complete moron! An apartment vs. a
cage in Petco? Did you have a lobotomy?

Luvskats00
January 8th 04, 01:37 AM
>You swapped one cage for >another. If you had not been so selfish they
>would have stood the chance of >getting a proper home.

Pssst ... don't show the world you're a complete moron! An apartment vs. a
cage in Petco? Did you have a lobotomy?

GovtLawyer
January 8th 04, 05:05 AM
>You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
>would have stood the chance of getting a proper home

That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like that?
Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or perhaps
they should be euthanized.

The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool like you
can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let their pets
out to fend for themselves? If having a pet is putting one in a cage, what is
the alternative?

I assume, that you aren't a pet owner. I certainly hope not; you're too cold,
belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of a pet.

GovtLawyer
January 8th 04, 05:05 AM
>You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
>would have stood the chance of getting a proper home

That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like that?
Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or perhaps
they should be euthanized.

The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool like you
can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let their pets
out to fend for themselves? If having a pet is putting one in a cage, what is
the alternative?

I assume, that you aren't a pet owner. I certainly hope not; you're too cold,
belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of a pet.

Hans Schrøder
January 8th 04, 05:14 AM
"GovtLawyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like
that?
> Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or
perhaps
> they should be euthanized.
>
> The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool like
you
> can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let their
pets
> out to fend for themselves? If having a pet is putting one in a cage,
what is
> the alternative?
>
> I assume, that you aren't a pet owner. I certainly hope not; you're too
cold,
> belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of a
pet.

I never thought I was going to say this, but now I just have to: Don't feed
the trolls!

Leave Brenchley alone outside in the snow where he belongs...

Hans

Hans Schrøder
January 8th 04, 05:14 AM
"GovtLawyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like
that?
> Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or
perhaps
> they should be euthanized.
>
> The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool like
you
> can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let their
pets
> out to fend for themselves? If having a pet is putting one in a cage,
what is
> the alternative?
>
> I assume, that you aren't a pet owner. I certainly hope not; you're too
cold,
> belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of a
pet.

I never thought I was going to say this, but now I just have to: Don't feed
the trolls!

Leave Brenchley alone outside in the snow where he belongs...

Hans

Bob Brenchley.
January 8th 04, 11:08 AM
On 08 Jan 2004 00:37:49 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

>>You swapped one cage for >another. If you had not been so selfish they
>>would have stood the chance of >getting a proper home.
>
>Pssst ... don't show the world you're a complete moron! An apartment vs. a
>cage in Petco? Did you have a lobotomy?

A gage is a cage - end of story.

--
Bob.

Light travels faster than sound. This is why you appear bright until
we hear you talk.

Bob Brenchley.
January 8th 04, 11:08 AM
On 08 Jan 2004 00:37:49 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

>>You swapped one cage for >another. If you had not been so selfish they
>>would have stood the chance of >getting a proper home.
>
>Pssst ... don't show the world you're a complete moron! An apartment vs. a
>cage in Petco? Did you have a lobotomy?

A gage is a cage - end of story.

--
Bob.

Light travels faster than sound. This is why you appear bright until
we hear you talk.

Bob Brenchley.
January 8th 04, 11:14 AM
On 08 Jan 2004 04:05:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

>>You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
>>would have stood the chance of getting a proper home
>
>That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like that?
>Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or perhaps
>they should be euthanized.

Why would I think that?
>
>The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool like you
>can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let their pets
>out to fend for themselves?

Your stupidity is showing.

> If having a pet is putting one in a cage, what is
>the alternative?

The correct homing of a cat - where it is free to spend at least some
time each day outdoors with the freedom to roam as its will dictates.
>
>I assume, that you aren't a pet owner.

You assume wrong.

> I certainly hope not; you're too cold,
>belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of a pet.

I've kept cats for over 40 years. I've fostered cats for the last 12
years - including rescued cats who have been abused by being kept in
24/7, in some cases for years. Working with those cats, sometimes for
months, to help them build a proper life is very rewarding.

In addition I help raise money for a number of shelters - including
acting as advisor to a number of shelters in North America.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
January 8th 04, 11:14 AM
On 08 Jan 2004 04:05:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

>>You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
>>would have stood the chance of getting a proper home
>
>That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like that?
>Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or perhaps
>they should be euthanized.

Why would I think that?
>
>The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool like you
>can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let their pets
>out to fend for themselves?

Your stupidity is showing.

> If having a pet is putting one in a cage, what is
>the alternative?

The correct homing of a cat - where it is free to spend at least some
time each day outdoors with the freedom to roam as its will dictates.
>
>I assume, that you aren't a pet owner.

You assume wrong.

> I certainly hope not; you're too cold,
>belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of a pet.

I've kept cats for over 40 years. I've fostered cats for the last 12
years - including rescued cats who have been abused by being kept in
24/7, in some cases for years. Working with those cats, sometimes for
months, to help them build a proper life is very rewarding.

In addition I help raise money for a number of shelters - including
acting as advisor to a number of shelters in North America.

--
Bob.

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

Luvskats00
January 8th 04, 12:40 PM
(a known troll) awkwardly says

>A gage is a cage - end of story.

Luvskats00
January 8th 04, 12:40 PM
(a known troll) awkwardly says

>A gage is a cage - end of story.

Luvskats00
January 8th 04, 12:42 PM
Bob renchley the twit aka

says

>In addition I help raise money for a >number of shelters - including
>acting as advisor to a number of >shelters in North America.


Where in North America? In the US, the prevailing policy, position and view is
to keep cat indoors...it's safer.

Luvskats00
January 8th 04, 12:42 PM
Bob renchley the twit aka

says

>In addition I help raise money for a >number of shelters - including
>acting as advisor to a number of >shelters in North America.


Where in North America? In the US, the prevailing policy, position and view is
to keep cat indoors...it's safer.

Bob Brenchley.
January 8th 04, 01:19 PM
On 08 Jan 2004 11:42:54 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

>Bob renchley the twit aka

>says
>
>>In addition I help raise money for a >number of shelters - including
>>acting as advisor to a number of >shelters in North America.
>
>
>Where in North America?

Currently 6 in the US and 1 in Canada.

>In the US, the prevailing policy, position and view is
>to keep cat indoors...it's safer.

No it isn't and no it isn't.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
January 8th 04, 01:19 PM
On 08 Jan 2004 11:42:54 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

>Bob renchley the twit aka

>says
>
>>In addition I help raise money for a >number of shelters - including
>>acting as advisor to a number of >shelters in North America.
>
>
>Where in North America?

Currently 6 in the US and 1 in Canada.

>In the US, the prevailing policy, position and view is
>to keep cat indoors...it's safer.

No it isn't and no it isn't.

--
Bob.

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

LeeAnne
January 8th 04, 04:58 PM
Still a jackass I see - you're un-flipping-real you know that? Get over it.
Here in the US when you adopt a cat out of a shelter they give you at least
three provisions: you get it fixed to prevent over population, you get it's
shots ASAP if they're needed -AND- you keep the indoors - some even add in
the "please do no declaw"

I'm so glad I have a life - I haven't been on this newsgroup regularly for
ages and here you are still posting your drivel - my god man - get outside
like you like your cats to do - you need another hobby.

LeeAnne
proud mom of Max, 100% indoor, or supervised outdoor kitty

"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>>
> >In the US, the prevailing policy, position and view is
> >to keep cat indoors...it's safer.
>
> No it isn't and no it isn't.
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
> friends so they may learn as well.
>

LeeAnne
January 8th 04, 04:58 PM
Still a jackass I see - you're un-flipping-real you know that? Get over it.
Here in the US when you adopt a cat out of a shelter they give you at least
three provisions: you get it fixed to prevent over population, you get it's
shots ASAP if they're needed -AND- you keep the indoors - some even add in
the "please do no declaw"

I'm so glad I have a life - I haven't been on this newsgroup regularly for
ages and here you are still posting your drivel - my god man - get outside
like you like your cats to do - you need another hobby.

LeeAnne
proud mom of Max, 100% indoor, or supervised outdoor kitty

"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>>
> >In the US, the prevailing policy, position and view is
> >to keep cat indoors...it's safer.
>
> No it isn't and no it isn't.
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
> friends so they may learn as well.
>

Luvskats00
January 8th 04, 05:26 PM
To prove he's not a troll,
Bob Brenchley.
does his research and posts

>No it isn't and no it isn't.

Once again, Bob B. shows the world what happens when someone stops taking
needed medication!

Luvskats00
January 8th 04, 05:26 PM
To prove he's not a troll,
Bob Brenchley.
does his research and posts

>No it isn't and no it isn't.

Once again, Bob B. shows the world what happens when someone stops taking
needed medication!

Bob Brenchley.
January 8th 04, 06:04 PM
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:58:09 -0500, "LeeAnne"
> wrote:


>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>>>
>> >In the US, the prevailing policy, position and view is
>> >to keep cat indoors...it's safer.
>>
>> No it isn't and no it isn't.
>>
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.

>Still a jackass I see - you're un-flipping-real you know that? Get over it.
>Here in the US when you adopt a cat out of a shelter they give you at least
>three provisions: you get it fixed

How can you 2fix" something that is not broken?

>to prevent over population, you get it's
>shots ASAP if they're needed -AND- you keep the indoors

That is a lie. Less than 35% of US shelters have any form of indoor
only clause, and many of them only insist on indoor only in certain
areas. In the rest of the world those areas would not be deemed
suitable for a cat as most of the world treats its cats better.

> - some even add in
>the "please do no declaw"

Sadly people like you who ill-treat cats by locking them up 24/7 are
the cause of the declawing.
>
>I'm so glad I have a life - I haven't been on this newsgroup regularly for
>ages and here you are still posting your drivel

Facts - just plain everyday facts.

>- my god man - get outside
>like you like your cats to do - you need another hobby.
>
>LeeAnne
>proud mom of Max, 100% indoor, or supervised outdoor kitty
>
You are a very sick animal abuser - I'm glad to say that in civilized
countries you would not be allowed to have cats.

--
Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.

Bob Brenchley.
January 8th 04, 06:04 PM
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:58:09 -0500, "LeeAnne"
> wrote:


>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>>>
>> >In the US, the prevailing policy, position and view is
>> >to keep cat indoors...it's safer.
>>
>> No it isn't and no it isn't.
>>
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.

>Still a jackass I see - you're un-flipping-real you know that? Get over it.
>Here in the US when you adopt a cat out of a shelter they give you at least
>three provisions: you get it fixed

How can you 2fix" something that is not broken?

>to prevent over population, you get it's
>shots ASAP if they're needed -AND- you keep the indoors

That is a lie. Less than 35% of US shelters have any form of indoor
only clause, and many of them only insist on indoor only in certain
areas. In the rest of the world those areas would not be deemed
suitable for a cat as most of the world treats its cats better.

> - some even add in
>the "please do no declaw"

Sadly people like you who ill-treat cats by locking them up 24/7 are
the cause of the declawing.
>
>I'm so glad I have a life - I haven't been on this newsgroup regularly for
>ages and here you are still posting your drivel

Facts - just plain everyday facts.

>- my god man - get outside
>like you like your cats to do - you need another hobby.
>
>LeeAnne
>proud mom of Max, 100% indoor, or supervised outdoor kitty
>
You are a very sick animal abuser - I'm glad to say that in civilized
countries you would not be allowed to have cats.

--
Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.

Bob Brenchley.
January 8th 04, 06:05 PM
On 08 Jan 2004 16:26:12 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

>To prove he's not a troll,
>Bob Brenchley.
>does his research and posts
>
>>No it isn't and no it isn't.
>
>Once again, Bob B. shows the world what happens when someone stops taking
>needed medication!
>

Stupid Troll.

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

Bob Brenchley.
January 8th 04, 06:05 PM
On 08 Jan 2004 16:26:12 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

>To prove he's not a troll,
>Bob Brenchley.
>does his research and posts
>
>>No it isn't and no it isn't.
>
>Once again, Bob B. shows the world what happens when someone stops taking
>needed medication!
>

Stupid Troll.

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

ParrotRob
January 10th 04, 02:08 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On 04 Jan 2004 16:02:56 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:
>
> >I think pet owners should understand the difference between wild, feral
> >animals, and domesticated ones. Our pets need our protection more than
they
> >need to be allowed to roam around at will.
> >
> >Just my two cents.
>
> 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.
>

Christ, I thought you were dead. Actually I was hoping you were.

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

ParrotRob
January 10th 04, 02:08 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On 04 Jan 2004 16:02:56 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:
>
> >I think pet owners should understand the difference between wild, feral
> >animals, and domesticated ones. Our pets need our protection more than
they
> >need to be allowed to roam around at will.
> >
> >Just my two cents.
>
> 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.
>

Christ, I thought you were dead. Actually I was hoping you were.

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

ParrotRob
January 10th 04, 02:13 AM
"Luvskats00" > wrote in message
...
> >You swapped one cage for >another. If you had not been so selfish they
> >would have stood the chance of >getting a proper home.
>
> Pssst ... don't show the world you're a complete moron! An apartment vs.
a
> cage in Petco? Did you have a lobotomy?

As a matter of fact, he did. Go easy on him, he finds it hard to
distinguish between fantasy and reality.

ParrotRob
January 10th 04, 02:13 AM
"Luvskats00" > wrote in message
...
> >You swapped one cage for >another. If you had not been so selfish they
> >would have stood the chance of >getting a proper home.
>
> Pssst ... don't show the world you're a complete moron! An apartment vs.
a
> cage in Petco? Did you have a lobotomy?

As a matter of fact, he did. Go easy on him, he finds it hard to
distinguish between fantasy and reality.

ParrotRob
January 10th 04, 02:14 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On 08 Jan 2004 04:05:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:
>
> >>You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
> >>would have stood the chance of getting a proper home
> >
> >That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like
that?
> >Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or
perhaps
> >they should be euthanized.
>
> Why would I think that?
> >
> >The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool
like you
> >can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let
their pets
> >out to fend for themselves?
>
> Your stupidity is showing.
>
> > If having a pet is putting one in a cage, what is
> >the alternative?
>
> The correct homing of a cat - where it is free to spend at least some
> time each day outdoors with the freedom to roam as its will dictates.
> >
> >I assume, that you aren't a pet owner.
>
> You assume wrong.
>
> > I certainly hope not; you're too cold,
> >belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of a
pet.
>
> I've kept cats for over 40 years. I've fostered cats for the last 12
> years - including rescued cats who have been abused by being kept in
> 24/7, in some cases for years. Working with those cats, sometimes for
> months, to help them build a proper life is very rewarding.
>
> In addition I help raise money for a number of shelters - including
> acting as advisor to a number of shelters in North America.
>

Name a single one. You can't, can you?

ParrotRob
January 10th 04, 02:14 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On 08 Jan 2004 04:05:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:
>
> >>You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
> >>would have stood the chance of getting a proper home
> >
> >That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like
that?
> >Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or
perhaps
> >they should be euthanized.
>
> Why would I think that?
> >
> >The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool
like you
> >can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let
their pets
> >out to fend for themselves?
>
> Your stupidity is showing.
>
> > If having a pet is putting one in a cage, what is
> >the alternative?
>
> The correct homing of a cat - where it is free to spend at least some
> time each day outdoors with the freedom to roam as its will dictates.
> >
> >I assume, that you aren't a pet owner.
>
> You assume wrong.
>
> > I certainly hope not; you're too cold,
> >belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of a
pet.
>
> I've kept cats for over 40 years. I've fostered cats for the last 12
> years - including rescued cats who have been abused by being kept in
> 24/7, in some cases for years. Working with those cats, sometimes for
> months, to help them build a proper life is very rewarding.
>
> In addition I help raise money for a number of shelters - including
> acting as advisor to a number of shelters in North America.
>

Name a single one. You can't, can you?

Luvskats00
January 10th 04, 12:02 PM
>Did you have a lobotomy?

>> Go easy on him, he finds it hard >>to distinguish between fantasy >>and
reality.


Then he should be locked up and medicated for his own protection! <giggle>

Luvskats00
January 10th 04, 12:02 PM
>Did you have a lobotomy?

>> Go easy on him, he finds it hard >>to distinguish between fantasy >>and
reality.


Then he should be locked up and medicated for his own protection! <giggle>

Bob Brenchley.
January 10th 04, 12:18 PM
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:13:03 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>"Luvskats00" > wrote in message
...
>> >You swapped one cage for >another. If you had not been so selfish they
>> >would have stood the chance of >getting a proper home.
>>
>> Pssst ... don't show the world you're a complete moron! An apartment vs.
>a
>> cage in Petco? Did you have a lobotomy?
>
>As a matter of fact, he did. Go easy on him, he finds it hard to
>distinguish between fantasy and reality.
>

Stupid Troll.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
January 10th 04, 12:18 PM
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:13:03 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>"Luvskats00" > wrote in message
...
>> >You swapped one cage for >another. If you had not been so selfish they
>> >would have stood the chance of >getting a proper home.
>>
>> Pssst ... don't show the world you're a complete moron! An apartment vs.
>a
>> cage in Petco? Did you have a lobotomy?
>
>As a matter of fact, he did. Go easy on him, he finds it hard to
>distinguish between fantasy and reality.
>

Stupid Troll.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
January 10th 04, 12:19 PM
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:14:21 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On 08 Jan 2004 04:05:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:
>>
>> >>You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
>> >>would have stood the chance of getting a proper home
>> >
>> >That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like
>that?
>> >Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or
>perhaps
>> >they should be euthanized.
>>
>> Why would I think that?
>> >
>> >The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool
>like you
>> >can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let
>their pets
>> >out to fend for themselves?
>>
>> Your stupidity is showing.
>>
>> > If having a pet is putting one in a cage, what is
>> >the alternative?
>>
>> The correct homing of a cat - where it is free to spend at least some
>> time each day outdoors with the freedom to roam as its will dictates.
>> >
>> >I assume, that you aren't a pet owner.
>>
>> You assume wrong.
>>
>> > I certainly hope not; you're too cold,
>> >belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of a
>pet.
>>
>> I've kept cats for over 40 years. I've fostered cats for the last 12
>> years - including rescued cats who have been abused by being kept in
>> 24/7, in some cases for years. Working with those cats, sometimes for
>> months, to help them build a proper life is very rewarding.
>>
>> In addition I help raise money for a number of shelters - including
>> acting as advisor to a number of shelters in North America.
>>
>
>Name a single one. You can't, can you?
>
Oh do shut up you stupid troll.

--
Bob.

I read your mind, and believe me, it was a short story...

Bob Brenchley.
January 10th 04, 12:19 PM
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:14:21 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On 08 Jan 2004 04:05:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:
>>
>> >>You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
>> >>would have stood the chance of getting a proper home
>> >
>> >That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like
>that?
>> >Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or
>perhaps
>> >they should be euthanized.
>>
>> Why would I think that?
>> >
>> >The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool
>like you
>> >can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let
>their pets
>> >out to fend for themselves?
>>
>> Your stupidity is showing.
>>
>> > If having a pet is putting one in a cage, what is
>> >the alternative?
>>
>> The correct homing of a cat - where it is free to spend at least some
>> time each day outdoors with the freedom to roam as its will dictates.
>> >
>> >I assume, that you aren't a pet owner.
>>
>> You assume wrong.
>>
>> > I certainly hope not; you're too cold,
>> >belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of a
>pet.
>>
>> I've kept cats for over 40 years. I've fostered cats for the last 12
>> years - including rescued cats who have been abused by being kept in
>> 24/7, in some cases for years. Working with those cats, sometimes for
>> months, to help them build a proper life is very rewarding.
>>
>> In addition I help raise money for a number of shelters - including
>> acting as advisor to a number of shelters in North America.
>>
>
>Name a single one. You can't, can you?
>
Oh do shut up you stupid troll.

--
Bob.

I read your mind, and believe me, it was a short story...

Luvskats00
January 10th 04, 09:40 PM
Yes, Bob, you are a stupid troll! <giggle>..and a twit, to boot!

Luvskats00
January 10th 04, 09:40 PM
Yes, Bob, you are a stupid troll! <giggle>..and a twit, to boot!

Bob Brenchley.
January 11th 04, 12:15 AM
On 10 Jan 2004 20:40:03 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

>Yes, Bob, you are a stupid troll! <giggle>..and a twit, to boot!

Stupid Troll.

--
Bob.

She's on holiday - well at least from the neck up.

Bob Brenchley.
January 11th 04, 12:15 AM
On 10 Jan 2004 20:40:03 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

>Yes, Bob, you are a stupid troll! <giggle>..and a twit, to boot!

Stupid Troll.

--
Bob.

She's on holiday - well at least from the neck up.

ParrotRob
January 14th 04, 03:31 PM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:14:21 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 08 Jan 2004 04:05:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
> >> >>would have stood the chance of getting a proper home
> >> >
> >> >That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like
> >that?
> >> >Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or
> >perhaps
> >> >they should be euthanized.
> >>
> >> Why would I think that?
> >> >
> >> >The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool
> >like you
> >> >can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let
> >their pets
> >> >out to fend for themselves?
> >>
> >> Your stupidity is showing.
> >>
> >> > If having a pet is putting one in a cage, what is
> >> >the alternative?
> >>
> >> The correct homing of a cat - where it is free to spend at least some
> >> time each day outdoors with the freedom to roam as its will dictates.
> >> >
> >> >I assume, that you aren't a pet owner.
> >>
> >> You assume wrong.
> >>
> >> > I certainly hope not; you're too cold,
> >> >belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of
a
> >pet.
> >>
> >> I've kept cats for over 40 years. I've fostered cats for the last 12
> >> years - including rescued cats who have been abused by being kept in
> >> 24/7, in some cases for years. Working with those cats, sometimes for
> >> months, to help them build a proper life is very rewarding.
> >>
> >> In addition I help raise money for a number of shelters - including
> >> acting as advisor to a number of shelters in North America.
> >>
> >
> >Name a single one. You can't, can you?
> >
> Oh do shut up you stupid troll.

Thanks, Bob. That's what I thought. You CAN'T name a single one, can you?

> --
> Imbecile.
>
> Read my mind. Believe me, it is a short story...

ParrotRob
January 14th 04, 03:31 PM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:14:21 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 08 Jan 2004 04:05:57 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>You swapped one cage for another. If you had not been so selfish they
> >> >>would have stood the chance of getting a proper home
> >> >
> >> >That is pretty dim witted remark. Do you know how many there are like
> >that?
> >> >Oh, perhaps you think they should stay in the 2 X 4 cage forever, or
> >perhaps
> >> >they should be euthanized.
> >>
> >> Why would I think that?
> >> >
> >> >The problem with you, is that you offer no alternatives. Even a fool
> >like you
> >> >can't believe that all pet owners should open up their doors and let
> >their pets
> >> >out to fend for themselves?
> >>
> >> Your stupidity is showing.
> >>
> >> > If having a pet is putting one in a cage, what is
> >> >the alternative?
> >>
> >> The correct homing of a cat - where it is free to spend at least some
> >> time each day outdoors with the freedom to roam as its will dictates.
> >> >
> >> >I assume, that you aren't a pet owner.
> >>
> >> You assume wrong.
> >>
> >> > I certainly hope not; you're too cold,
> >> >belligerent, and immature to deserve the pleasurable companionship of
a
> >pet.
> >>
> >> I've kept cats for over 40 years. I've fostered cats for the last 12
> >> years - including rescued cats who have been abused by being kept in
> >> 24/7, in some cases for years. Working with those cats, sometimes for
> >> months, to help them build a proper life is very rewarding.
> >>
> >> In addition I help raise money for a number of shelters - including
> >> acting as advisor to a number of shelters in North America.
> >>
> >
> >Name a single one. You can't, can you?
> >
> Oh do shut up you stupid troll.

Thanks, Bob. That's what I thought. You CAN'T name a single one, can you?

> --
> Imbecile.
>
> Read my mind. Believe me, it is a short story...

Bob Brenchley.
January 14th 04, 03:52 PM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:31:55 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>> >
>> Oh do shut up you stupid troll.
>
>Thanks, Bob. That's what I thought. You CAN'T name a single one, can you?

Not to a stupid animal abusing troll like you ParrotSlob.

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

Bob Brenchley.
January 14th 04, 03:52 PM
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:31:55 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>> >
>> Oh do shut up you stupid troll.
>
>Thanks, Bob. That's what I thought. You CAN'T name a single one, can you?

Not to a stupid animal abusing troll like you ParrotSlob.

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

Luvskats00
January 15th 04, 08:34 AM
Bob Brenchley.

was a twit
is a twit
will always be a twit

was a jerk
is a jerk
will alway be a jerk
and so on...

Luvskats00
January 15th 04, 08:34 AM
Bob Brenchley.

was a twit
is a twit
will always be a twit

was a jerk
is a jerk
will alway be a jerk
and so on...

ParrotRob
January 15th 04, 11:31 PM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:31:55 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> Oh do shut up you stupid troll.
> >
> >Thanks, Bob. That's what I thought. You CAN'T name a single one, can
you?
>
> Not to a stupid animal abusing troll like you ParrotSlob.

In other words, no. Thanks again.

> --
> Imbecile.
>
> See, I've set aside this special time to humiliate myself in
> public.

ParrotRob
January 15th 04, 11:31 PM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:31:55 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> Oh do shut up you stupid troll.
> >
> >Thanks, Bob. That's what I thought. You CAN'T name a single one, can
you?
>
> Not to a stupid animal abusing troll like you ParrotSlob.

In other words, no. Thanks again.

> --
> Imbecile.
>
> See, I've set aside this special time to humiliate myself in
> public.

Bob Brenchley.
January 16th 04, 12:18 AM
On 15 Jan 2004 07:34:47 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

> Bob Brenchley.
>
>was a twit
>is a twit
>will always be a twit
>
>was a jerk
>is a jerk
>will alway be a jerk
>and so on...

Stupid troll!

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

Bob Brenchley.
January 16th 04, 12:18 AM
On 15 Jan 2004 07:34:47 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

> Bob Brenchley.
>
>was a twit
>is a twit
>will always be a twit
>
>was a jerk
>is a jerk
>will alway be a jerk
>and so on...

Stupid troll!

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

ParrotRob
January 16th 04, 06:57 PM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Jan 2004 07:34:47 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:
>
> > Bob Brenchley.
> >
> >was a twit
> >is a twit
> >will always be a twit
> >
> >was a jerk
> >is a jerk
> >will alway be a jerk
> >and so on...
>
> Stupid troll!

Good point. He's a "Stupid troll!", too.

> --
> Imbecile.
>
> See, I've set aside this special time to humiliate myself in
> public.

ParrotRob
January 16th 04, 06:57 PM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Jan 2004 07:34:47 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:
>
> > Bob Brenchley.
> >
> >was a twit
> >is a twit
> >will always be a twit
> >
> >was a jerk
> >is a jerk
> >will alway be a jerk
> >and so on...
>
> Stupid troll!

Good point. He's a "Stupid troll!", too.

> --
> Imbecile.
>
> See, I've set aside this special time to humiliate myself in
> public.

Bob Brenchley.
January 16th 04, 10:28 PM
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:31:55 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:31:55 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> Oh do shut up you stupid troll.
>> >
>> >Thanks, Bob. That's what I thought. You CAN'T name a single one, can
>you?
>>
>> Not to a stupid animal abusing troll like you ParrotSlob.
>
>In other words, no. Thanks again.
>
>> --
>> Imbecile.
>>
>> See, I've set aside this special time to humiliate myself in
>> public.
>

Another stupid troll that does not know how to use a newsreader.

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

Bob Brenchley.
January 16th 04, 10:28 PM
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:31:55 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:31:55 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> Oh do shut up you stupid troll.
>> >
>> >Thanks, Bob. That's what I thought. You CAN'T name a single one, can
>you?
>>
>> Not to a stupid animal abusing troll like you ParrotSlob.
>
>In other words, no. Thanks again.
>
>> --
>> Imbecile.
>>
>> See, I've set aside this special time to humiliate myself in
>> public.
>

Another stupid troll that does not know how to use a newsreader.

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

Bob Brenchley.
January 16th 04, 10:28 PM
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:57:21 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On 15 Jan 2004 07:34:47 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:
>>
>> > Bob Brenchley.
>> >
>> >was a twit
>> >is a twit
>> >will always be a twit
>> >
>> >was a jerk
>> >is a jerk
>> >will alway be a jerk
>> >and so on...
>>
>> Stupid troll!
>
>Good point. He's a "Stupid troll!", too.
>
>> --
>> Imbecile.
>>
>> See, I've set aside this special time to humiliate myself in
>> public.
>
Abuse Report Filed.

--
Bob.

Your stupidity sets new standards - even for Usenet.

Bob Brenchley.
January 16th 04, 10:28 PM
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:57:21 GMT, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On 15 Jan 2004 07:34:47 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:
>>
>> > Bob Brenchley.
>> >
>> >was a twit
>> >is a twit
>> >will always be a twit
>> >
>> >was a jerk
>> >is a jerk
>> >will alway be a jerk
>> >and so on...
>>
>> Stupid troll!
>
>Good point. He's a "Stupid troll!", too.
>
>> --
>> Imbecile.
>>
>> See, I've set aside this special time to humiliate myself in
>> public.
>
Abuse Report Filed.

--
Bob.

Your stupidity sets new standards - even for Usenet.