PDA

View Full Version : How much space for a cat?


Tristan Miller
February 2nd 04, 07:03 PM
Greetings.

I am considering getting a kitten to keep my little ferret company while I'm
at work. From what I read, cats and ferrets usually get along just fine
provided that they're introduced at an early age. My only concern is that
my apartment might be too small. I have only one largeish room with a
small kitchen and bathroom -- the total area is 40 m². Will a small cat be
happy with this or do I need to think about getting a bigger place? I
intend to keep the pet as an indoor cat only. (Of course, I don't mind
taking it for walks every day should it be one of those rare individuals
who take to walking with leashes.)

Also, how much attention will I need to give the cat? I play with my ferret
for at least a couple hours a day (any less and she sometimes keeps me up
at night), so I'm hoping I can combine playtime.

Regards,
Tristan

--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

Bob Brenchley.
February 2nd 04, 07:30 PM
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:03:45 +0100, Tristan Miller
> wrote:

>Greetings.
>
>I am considering getting a kitten to keep my little ferret company while I'm
>at work. From what I read, cats and ferrets usually get along just fine
>provided that they're introduced at an early age. My only concern is that
>my apartment might be too small. I have only one largeish room with a
>small kitchen and bathroom -- the total area is 40 m². Will a small cat be
>happy with this or do I need to think about getting a bigger place? I
>intend to keep the pet as an indoor cat only. (Of course, I don't mind
>taking it for walks every day should it be one of those rare individuals
>who take to walking with leashes.)
>
>Also, how much attention will I need to give the cat? I play with my ferret
>for at least a couple hours a day (any less and she sometimes keeps me up
>at night), so I'm hoping I can combine playtime.
>
>Regards,
>Tristan

Cats do not make suitable apartment pets. Then need access to the
outside world.

And cats dictate the level of attention, not their human slaves :)

--
Bob.

When the cat's away there are fewer hairs on the armchair.

Bob Brenchley.
February 2nd 04, 07:30 PM
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:03:45 +0100, Tristan Miller
> wrote:

>Greetings.
>
>I am considering getting a kitten to keep my little ferret company while I'm
>at work. From what I read, cats and ferrets usually get along just fine
>provided that they're introduced at an early age. My only concern is that
>my apartment might be too small. I have only one largeish room with a
>small kitchen and bathroom -- the total area is 40 m². Will a small cat be
>happy with this or do I need to think about getting a bigger place? I
>intend to keep the pet as an indoor cat only. (Of course, I don't mind
>taking it for walks every day should it be one of those rare individuals
>who take to walking with leashes.)
>
>Also, how much attention will I need to give the cat? I play with my ferret
>for at least a couple hours a day (any less and she sometimes keeps me up
>at night), so I'm hoping I can combine playtime.
>
>Regards,
>Tristan

Cats do not make suitable apartment pets. Then need access to the
outside world.

And cats dictate the level of attention, not their human slaves :)

--
Bob.

When the cat's away there are fewer hairs on the armchair.

Ted Davis
February 2nd 04, 09:36 PM
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:03:45 +0100, Tristan Miller
> wrote:

>Greetings.
>
>I am considering getting a kitten to keep my little ferret company while I'm
>at work. From what I read, cats and ferrets usually get along just fine
>provided that they're introduced at an early age. My only concern is that
>my apartment might be too small. I have only one largeish room with a
>small kitchen and bathroom -- the total area is 40 m². Will a small cat be
>happy with this or do I need to think about getting a bigger place? I
>intend to keep the pet as an indoor cat only. (Of course, I don't mind
>taking it for walks every day should it be one of those rare individuals
>who take to walking with leashes.)
>
>Also, how much attention will I need to give the cat? I play with my ferret
>for at least a couple hours a day (any less and she sometimes keeps me up
>at night), so I'm hoping I can combine playtime.

On average, if you believe anything BB tells you, you will go wrong -
ignore him as most of the rest of us do.

Cats will generally adapt to whatever space they have, but the less
space, the more effort required to make sure they get enough exercise.
Indoor cats also benefit from being given coarse grasses to nibble on
- wheat, oats, or even popcorn sprouts. You will also need climbing
and clawing things.

I've seen as many as fifteen cats in about the same area as you have,
but the place stank. The cats were happy enough.

I have about a dozen in little over twice that space, but they know
they can go out any time they want, they just mostly don't want to in
cold and wet weather.



T.E.D. )
SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D."
somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.

Ted Davis
February 2nd 04, 09:36 PM
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:03:45 +0100, Tristan Miller
> wrote:

>Greetings.
>
>I am considering getting a kitten to keep my little ferret company while I'm
>at work. From what I read, cats and ferrets usually get along just fine
>provided that they're introduced at an early age. My only concern is that
>my apartment might be too small. I have only one largeish room with a
>small kitchen and bathroom -- the total area is 40 m². Will a small cat be
>happy with this or do I need to think about getting a bigger place? I
>intend to keep the pet as an indoor cat only. (Of course, I don't mind
>taking it for walks every day should it be one of those rare individuals
>who take to walking with leashes.)
>
>Also, how much attention will I need to give the cat? I play with my ferret
>for at least a couple hours a day (any less and she sometimes keeps me up
>at night), so I'm hoping I can combine playtime.

On average, if you believe anything BB tells you, you will go wrong -
ignore him as most of the rest of us do.

Cats will generally adapt to whatever space they have, but the less
space, the more effort required to make sure they get enough exercise.
Indoor cats also benefit from being given coarse grasses to nibble on
- wheat, oats, or even popcorn sprouts. You will also need climbing
and clawing things.

I've seen as many as fifteen cats in about the same area as you have,
but the place stank. The cats were happy enough.

I have about a dozen in little over twice that space, but they know
they can go out any time they want, they just mostly don't want to in
cold and wet weather.



T.E.D. )
SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D."
somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.

Bob Brenchley.
February 3rd 04, 04:01 PM
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 15:36:42 -0600, Ted Davis
> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:03:45 +0100, Tristan Miller
> wrote:
>
>>Greetings.
>>
>>I am considering getting a kitten to keep my little ferret company while I'm
>>at work. From what I read, cats and ferrets usually get along just fine
>>provided that they're introduced at an early age. My only concern is that
>>my apartment might be too small. I have only one largeish room with a
>>small kitchen and bathroom -- the total area is 40 m². Will a small cat be
>>happy with this or do I need to think about getting a bigger place? I
>>intend to keep the pet as an indoor cat only. (Of course, I don't mind
>>taking it for walks every day should it be one of those rare individuals
>>who take to walking with leashes.)
>>
>>Also, how much attention will I need to give the cat? I play with my ferret
>>for at least a couple hours a day (any less and she sometimes keeps me up
>>at night), so I'm hoping I can combine playtime.
>
>On average, if you believe anything BB tells you, you will go wrong -
>ignore him as most of the rest of us do.

Stupid Troll!
>
>Cats will generally adapt to whatever space they have, but the less
>space, the more effort required to make sure they get enough exercise.
>Indoor cats also benefit from being given coarse grasses to nibble on
>- wheat, oats, or even popcorn sprouts. You will also need climbing
>and clawing things.
>
>I've seen as many as fifteen cats in about the same area as you have,
>but the place stank. The cats were happy enough.
>
>I have about a dozen in little over twice that space, but they know
>they can go out any time they want, they just mostly don't want to in
>cold and wet weather.

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.
>
>
>
>T.E.D. )
>SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D."
>somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.

--
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.
February 3rd 04, 04:01 PM
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 15:36:42 -0600, Ted Davis
> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:03:45 +0100, Tristan Miller
> wrote:
>
>>Greetings.
>>
>>I am considering getting a kitten to keep my little ferret company while I'm
>>at work. From what I read, cats and ferrets usually get along just fine
>>provided that they're introduced at an early age. My only concern is that
>>my apartment might be too small. I have only one largeish room with a
>>small kitchen and bathroom -- the total area is 40 m². Will a small cat be
>>happy with this or do I need to think about getting a bigger place? I
>>intend to keep the pet as an indoor cat only. (Of course, I don't mind
>>taking it for walks every day should it be one of those rare individuals
>>who take to walking with leashes.)
>>
>>Also, how much attention will I need to give the cat? I play with my ferret
>>for at least a couple hours a day (any less and she sometimes keeps me up
>>at night), so I'm hoping I can combine playtime.
>
>On average, if you believe anything BB tells you, you will go wrong -
>ignore him as most of the rest of us do.

Stupid Troll!
>
>Cats will generally adapt to whatever space they have, but the less
>space, the more effort required to make sure they get enough exercise.
>Indoor cats also benefit from being given coarse grasses to nibble on
>- wheat, oats, or even popcorn sprouts. You will also need climbing
>and clawing things.
>
>I've seen as many as fifteen cats in about the same area as you have,
>but the place stank. The cats were happy enough.
>
>I have about a dozen in little over twice that space, but they know
>they can go out any time they want, they just mostly don't want to in
>cold and wet weather.

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.
>
>
>
>T.E.D. )
>SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D."
>somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.

--
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.

Tristan Miller
February 3rd 04, 05:32 PM
Greetings.

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.

My grandparents' cat is indoor only, and to me it doesn't seem any more or
less happy than any outdoor cat I've come across. I know for a fact it's
more physically healthy than many outdoor cats I know, since it has no
opportunity to be mauled by a stranger.

Anyway, as I said, I fully intend to take the cat for walks every day
provided it's willing and can learn to walk with a leash.

Regards,
Tristan

--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

Tristan Miller
February 3rd 04, 05:32 PM
Greetings.

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.

My grandparents' cat is indoor only, and to me it doesn't seem any more or
less happy than any outdoor cat I've come across. I know for a fact it's
more physically healthy than many outdoor cats I know, since it has no
opportunity to be mauled by a stranger.

Anyway, as I said, I fully intend to take the cat for walks every day
provided it's willing and can learn to walk with a leash.

Regards,
Tristan

--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

Gee
February 5th 04, 03:18 AM
"Tristan Miller" > wrote in message

> My grandparents' cat is indoor only, and to me it doesn't seem any more or
> less happy than any outdoor cat I've come across. I know for a fact it's
> more physically healthy than many outdoor cats I know, since it has no
> opportunity to be mauled by a stranger.

Or by car/poison/fox/dog/desease/.

Here is a lot of info about Indoor cats and why do it indoor way, excellent
site: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pointe/9352/indoors.html

I learned far too late and in the worse possible way that cats should be
kept indoors, and only after my beloved QT got run over. My other 4 are now
living a very happy indoor life and like yours will, go out only on a safe
leash and cat harness. And even though I let them stay outside as long as
they want, they usually want back in only 15 min to 1/2 hr on nicer days.
They definitly prefer things I have done for them inside, like a tall cat
tree, cat bedroom on top of the cupboard, cat stairs on the walls, another
bad on another cupboard, delicious food, lots of toys and attention, and
above all my love.

Living in a flat is absolutely fine for a cat or two or three or four. Think
up not just sideways :) Cats would live on the ceiling if they could. Check
out this: http://www.thecatshouse.com/ about an amazing couple who love
their 9 cats so much they have redecorated the house to suit the cats. It is
so amazing what they;ve done that their book about it is regularely sold
out. Check it here, there are some pic of the house as well
http://www.thecatshouse.com/books/bk_01.htm or on amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0836221834/qid=1075950831//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-7973665-5362543?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

> Anyway, as I said, I fully intend to take the cat for walks every day
> provided it's willing and can learn to walk with a leash.

Came across this, about training the cat to walk on leash:
http://cats.about.com/library/howto/htwalkleash.htm

Gee

Gee
February 5th 04, 03:18 AM
"Tristan Miller" > wrote in message

> My grandparents' cat is indoor only, and to me it doesn't seem any more or
> less happy than any outdoor cat I've come across. I know for a fact it's
> more physically healthy than many outdoor cats I know, since it has no
> opportunity to be mauled by a stranger.

Or by car/poison/fox/dog/desease/.

Here is a lot of info about Indoor cats and why do it indoor way, excellent
site: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pointe/9352/indoors.html

I learned far too late and in the worse possible way that cats should be
kept indoors, and only after my beloved QT got run over. My other 4 are now
living a very happy indoor life and like yours will, go out only on a safe
leash and cat harness. And even though I let them stay outside as long as
they want, they usually want back in only 15 min to 1/2 hr on nicer days.
They definitly prefer things I have done for them inside, like a tall cat
tree, cat bedroom on top of the cupboard, cat stairs on the walls, another
bad on another cupboard, delicious food, lots of toys and attention, and
above all my love.

Living in a flat is absolutely fine for a cat or two or three or four. Think
up not just sideways :) Cats would live on the ceiling if they could. Check
out this: http://www.thecatshouse.com/ about an amazing couple who love
their 9 cats so much they have redecorated the house to suit the cats. It is
so amazing what they;ve done that their book about it is regularely sold
out. Check it here, there are some pic of the house as well
http://www.thecatshouse.com/books/bk_01.htm or on amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0836221834/qid=1075950831//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-7973665-5362543?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

> Anyway, as I said, I fully intend to take the cat for walks every day
> provided it's willing and can learn to walk with a leash.

Came across this, about training the cat to walk on leash:
http://cats.about.com/library/howto/htwalkleash.htm

Gee

Bob Brenchley.
February 5th 04, 03:17 PM
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 03:18:01 -0000, "Gee" > wrote:

>
>"Tristan Miller" > wrote in message
>
>> My grandparents' cat is indoor only, and to me it doesn't seem any more or
>> less happy than any outdoor cat I've come across. I know for a fact it's
>> more physically healthy than many outdoor cats I know, since it has no
>> opportunity to be mauled by a stranger.
>
>Or by car/poison/fox/dog/desease/.

Foxes have never been known to harm a healthy cat.

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 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.
February 5th 04, 03:17 PM
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 03:18:01 -0000, "Gee" > wrote:

>
>"Tristan Miller" > wrote in message
>
>> My grandparents' cat is indoor only, and to me it doesn't seem any more or
>> less happy than any outdoor cat I've come across. I know for a fact it's
>> more physically healthy than many outdoor cats I know, since it has no
>> opportunity to be mauled by a stranger.
>
>Or by car/poison/fox/dog/desease/.

Foxes have never been known to harm a healthy cat.

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 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.

Jacqueline
February 5th 04, 08:34 PM
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:17:04 +0000, 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.

Just subscribed to this group, you're like a stuck record, aren't ye?
Find it quite bizarre that you would spend so much of your time trying
to antagonise people.

Of course cats should be free to roam, - so should
dogs/budgies/hamsters/people - but there are very few places where
that is possible. We have made society that way. So if you take the
decision to home a cat you also take with it the responsibility of
making sure its needs are met - and that means ensuring it is safe and
well looked after. To call people abusers for keeping cats indoors in
a stable environment is just preposterous.

Jacqueline
(UK)

Jacqueline
February 5th 04, 08:34 PM
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:17:04 +0000, 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.

Just subscribed to this group, you're like a stuck record, aren't ye?
Find it quite bizarre that you would spend so much of your time trying
to antagonise people.

Of course cats should be free to roam, - so should
dogs/budgies/hamsters/people - but there are very few places where
that is possible. We have made society that way. So if you take the
decision to home a cat you also take with it the responsibility of
making sure its needs are met - and that means ensuring it is safe and
well looked after. To call people abusers for keeping cats indoors in
a stable environment is just preposterous.

Jacqueline
(UK)

Bob Brenchley.
February 5th 04, 10:56 PM
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:34:26 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:17:04 +0000, 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.
>
>Just subscribed to this group, you're like a stuck record, aren't ye?
>Find it quite bizarre that you would spend so much of your time trying
>to antagonise people.
>
>Of course cats should be free to roam, - so should
>dogs/budgies/hamsters/people - but there are very few places where
>that is possible. We have made society that way. So if you take the
>decision to home a cat you also take with it the responsibility of
>making sure its needs are met - and that means ensuring it is safe and
>well looked after. To call people abusers for keeping cats indoors in
>a stable environment is just preposterous.

When you take on the responsibility of homing any pet, one of the
important aspects is providing a proper environment for it. Cats need
space to roam, that is part of their nature. Dogs can't be given that
for human safety reasons. Hamsters are not native to the UK, but need
proper housing. People, unless imprisoned for a crime, do have a large
degree of freedom.
>
>Jacqueline
>(UK)

--
Bob.

Cats know what we feel. They don't always care, but they know.

Bob Brenchley.
February 5th 04, 10:56 PM
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:34:26 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:17:04 +0000, 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.
>
>Just subscribed to this group, you're like a stuck record, aren't ye?
>Find it quite bizarre that you would spend so much of your time trying
>to antagonise people.
>
>Of course cats should be free to roam, - so should
>dogs/budgies/hamsters/people - but there are very few places where
>that is possible. We have made society that way. So if you take the
>decision to home a cat you also take with it the responsibility of
>making sure its needs are met - and that means ensuring it is safe and
>well looked after. To call people abusers for keeping cats indoors in
>a stable environment is just preposterous.

When you take on the responsibility of homing any pet, one of the
important aspects is providing a proper environment for it. Cats need
space to roam, that is part of their nature. Dogs can't be given that
for human safety reasons. Hamsters are not native to the UK, but need
proper housing. People, unless imprisoned for a crime, do have a large
degree of freedom.
>
>Jacqueline
>(UK)

--
Bob.

Cats know what we feel. They don't always care, but they know.

Gee
February 6th 04, 12:55 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message

> Foxes have never been known to harm a healthy cat.

Actually, not true. And if you don't believe me (which you will not, because
you always know everything the best, and instead will call me names he he,
which I will not see because I am about to killfile you again like I have in
other newsgroups,) check with RSPCA. They are the ones who confirmed to me
that they do get cats attacked by foxes in. So even though cats may not be
fox's first preference, if they are hungry enough they'll go for it.

Gee

Gee
February 6th 04, 12:55 AM
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message

> Foxes have never been known to harm a healthy cat.

Actually, not true. And if you don't believe me (which you will not, because
you always know everything the best, and instead will call me names he he,
which I will not see because I am about to killfile you again like I have in
other newsgroups,) check with RSPCA. They are the ones who confirmed to me
that they do get cats attacked by foxes in. So even though cats may not be
fox's first preference, if they are hungry enough they'll go for it.

Gee

Jacqueline
February 6th 04, 12:20 PM
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:56:58 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:34:26 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>
>>Of course cats should be free to roam, - so should
>>dogs/budgies/hamsters/people - but there are very few places where
>>that is possible. We have made society that way. So if you take the
>>decision to home a cat you also take with it the responsibility of
>>making sure its needs are met - and that means ensuring it is safe and
>>well looked after. To call people abusers for keeping cats indoors in
>>a stable environment is just preposterous.
>
>When you take on the responsibility of homing any pet, one of the
>important aspects is providing a proper environment for it. Cats need
>space to roam, that is part of their nature.

It's part of every animal's 'nature' to roam, establish territory and
find food but we've moved on slightly from the laws of the jungle.
Cats have been domesticated and as such are provided with food,
shelter and territory. They adapt to their environment, just like we
adapt to the structures imposed on us.

> Dogs can't be given that for human safety reasons.

Foxes are essentially canine but they have 'freedom to roam' and don't
attack humans. You only think it's normal for dogs to be walked around
on leads because that's your experience.

> Hamsters are not native to the UK,

Nor are cats, they were introduced by the Romans.

> but need proper housing.

In a cage? Why can't they be let out to roam? Because they might get
eaten or killed? Ah, but it's their nature to forage for food!

>People, unless imprisoned for a crime, do have a large
>degree of freedom.

We don't have freedom to do as we please. You can't wander onto
someone's land and claim it as your own. You can't go around killing
people and eating them just 'cos you're hungry. We impose rules for
the sake of our civilisation - and that includes allowing animals in
our care to have a healthy, fulfilled, good life. It's your opinion
that cats need access to fields and roads to have that, but many
millions with happy indoor cat owners would disagree, so you can't
claim your opinion is any more valid than theirs.

Jacqueline
February 6th 04, 12:20 PM
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:56:58 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:34:26 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>
>>Of course cats should be free to roam, - so should
>>dogs/budgies/hamsters/people - but there are very few places where
>>that is possible. We have made society that way. So if you take the
>>decision to home a cat you also take with it the responsibility of
>>making sure its needs are met - and that means ensuring it is safe and
>>well looked after. To call people abusers for keeping cats indoors in
>>a stable environment is just preposterous.
>
>When you take on the responsibility of homing any pet, one of the
>important aspects is providing a proper environment for it. Cats need
>space to roam, that is part of their nature.

It's part of every animal's 'nature' to roam, establish territory and
find food but we've moved on slightly from the laws of the jungle.
Cats have been domesticated and as such are provided with food,
shelter and territory. They adapt to their environment, just like we
adapt to the structures imposed on us.

> Dogs can't be given that for human safety reasons.

Foxes are essentially canine but they have 'freedom to roam' and don't
attack humans. You only think it's normal for dogs to be walked around
on leads because that's your experience.

> Hamsters are not native to the UK,

Nor are cats, they were introduced by the Romans.

> but need proper housing.

In a cage? Why can't they be let out to roam? Because they might get
eaten or killed? Ah, but it's their nature to forage for food!

>People, unless imprisoned for a crime, do have a large
>degree of freedom.

We don't have freedom to do as we please. You can't wander onto
someone's land and claim it as your own. You can't go around killing
people and eating them just 'cos you're hungry. We impose rules for
the sake of our civilisation - and that includes allowing animals in
our care to have a healthy, fulfilled, good life. It's your opinion
that cats need access to fields and roads to have that, but many
millions with happy indoor cat owners would disagree, so you can't
claim your opinion is any more valid than theirs.

Cat Protector
February 7th 04, 02:56 AM
Looks like more bad advice from Bob Brenchley. Cats are just fine for
apartments. Bob do us all a favor and leave the newsgroup and leave it to
experienced cat people.

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:03:45 +0100, Tristan Miller
> > wrote:

> Cats do not make suitable apartment pets. Then need access to the
> outside world.
>
> And cats dictate the level of attention, not their human slaves :)
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> When the cat's away there are fewer hairs on the armchair.

Cat Protector
February 7th 04, 02:56 AM
Looks like more bad advice from Bob Brenchley. Cats are just fine for
apartments. Bob do us all a favor and leave the newsgroup and leave it to
experienced cat people.

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:03:45 +0100, Tristan Miller
> > wrote:

> Cats do not make suitable apartment pets. Then need access to the
> outside world.
>
> And cats dictate the level of attention, not their human slaves :)
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> When the cat's away there are fewer hairs on the armchair.

Cat Protector
February 7th 04, 02:59 AM
Cats are just fine for a one or two bedroom apartment so you should be ok
there. As for attention to the cat, give him/her the same amount of
attention as you would the ferret.

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com
"Tristan Miller" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings.
>
> I am considering getting a kitten to keep my little ferret company while
I'm
> at work. From what I read, cats and ferrets usually get along just fine
> provided that they're introduced at an early age. My only concern is that
> my apartment might be too small. I have only one largeish room with a
> small kitchen and bathroom -- the total area is 40 m². Will a small cat
be
> happy with this or do I need to think about getting a bigger place? I
> intend to keep the pet as an indoor cat only. (Of course, I don't mind
> taking it for walks every day should it be one of those rare individuals
> who take to walking with leashes.)
>
> Also, how much attention will I need to give the cat? I play with my
ferret
> for at least a couple hours a day (any less and she sometimes keeps me up
> at night), so I'm hoping I can combine playtime.
>
> Regards,
> Tristan
>
> --
> _
> _V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
> / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
> (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

Cat Protector
February 7th 04, 02:59 AM
Cats are just fine for a one or two bedroom apartment so you should be ok
there. As for attention to the cat, give him/her the same amount of
attention as you would the ferret.

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com
"Tristan Miller" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings.
>
> I am considering getting a kitten to keep my little ferret company while
I'm
> at work. From what I read, cats and ferrets usually get along just fine
> provided that they're introduced at an early age. My only concern is that
> my apartment might be too small. I have only one largeish room with a
> small kitchen and bathroom -- the total area is 40 m². Will a small cat
be
> happy with this or do I need to think about getting a bigger place? I
> intend to keep the pet as an indoor cat only. (Of course, I don't mind
> taking it for walks every day should it be one of those rare individuals
> who take to walking with leashes.)
>
> Also, how much attention will I need to give the cat? I play with my
ferret
> for at least a couple hours a day (any less and she sometimes keeps me up
> at night), so I'm hoping I can combine playtime.
>
> Regards,
> Tristan
>
> --
> _
> _V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
> / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
> (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

Cat Protector
February 7th 04, 03:07 AM
Well if you are intending on becoming a cat person you might want to refrain
from using the word "it" to describe your cat. Anyway, if you want to take
your cat out on a leash, I recommend getting the cat used to a harness at an
early age. The first thing to do is to put the harness on (without the
leash) and allow the cat to walk around in it for a few minutes every day.
Then when the cat is used to the harness attach the leash (I use a
retractable so the cat can feel a bit more freedom without having to stay
close to my heals) and walk him/her around for a few days to have the cat
get used to it. Then it should be safe for you and feline to explore the
outdoors together.

Since the cat is going to be mostly indoors, make sure he/she has plenty of
toys and things to climb on. Also, a clean litter box, scratching post, and
plenty of food and clean water is available for your feline. Since you
haven't had the cat yet, I'd consider going to the shelter and allow the cat
to choose you.

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

"Tristan Miller" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> My grandparents' cat is indoor only, and to me it doesn't seem any more or
> less happy than any outdoor cat I've come across. I know for a fact it's
> more physically healthy than many outdoor cats I know, since it has no
> opportunity to be mauled by a stranger.
>
> Anyway, as I said, I fully intend to take the cat for walks every day
> provided it's willing and can learn to walk with a leash.
>
> Regards,
> Tristan
>
> --
> _
> _V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
> / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
> (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

Cat Protector
February 7th 04, 03:07 AM
Well if you are intending on becoming a cat person you might want to refrain
from using the word "it" to describe your cat. Anyway, if you want to take
your cat out on a leash, I recommend getting the cat used to a harness at an
early age. The first thing to do is to put the harness on (without the
leash) and allow the cat to walk around in it for a few minutes every day.
Then when the cat is used to the harness attach the leash (I use a
retractable so the cat can feel a bit more freedom without having to stay
close to my heals) and walk him/her around for a few days to have the cat
get used to it. Then it should be safe for you and feline to explore the
outdoors together.

Since the cat is going to be mostly indoors, make sure he/she has plenty of
toys and things to climb on. Also, a clean litter box, scratching post, and
plenty of food and clean water is available for your feline. Since you
haven't had the cat yet, I'd consider going to the shelter and allow the cat
to choose you.

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com

"Tristan Miller" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> My grandparents' cat is indoor only, and to me it doesn't seem any more or
> less happy than any outdoor cat I've come across. I know for a fact it's
> more physically healthy than many outdoor cats I know, since it has no
> opportunity to be mauled by a stranger.
>
> Anyway, as I said, I fully intend to take the cat for walks every day
> provided it's willing and can learn to walk with a leash.
>
> Regards,
> Tristan
>
> --
> _
> _V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
> / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
> (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

Bob Brenchley.
February 7th 04, 10:59 AM
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:56:47 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>Looks like more bad advice from Bob Brenchley. Cats are just fine for
>apartments. Bob do us all a favor and leave the newsgroup and leave it to
>experienced cat people.
>
>--
>Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
>www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek
>
>Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
>www.catgalaxymedia.com
>
>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:03:45 +0100, Tristan Miller
>> > wrote:
>
>> Cats do not make suitable apartment pets. Then need access to the
>> outside world.
>>
>> And cats dictate the level of attention, not their human slaves :)
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
>> When the cat's away there are fewer hairs on the armchair.
>

This from a top-posting moron!

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 7th 04, 10:59 AM
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:56:47 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>Looks like more bad advice from Bob Brenchley. Cats are just fine for
>apartments. Bob do us all a favor and leave the newsgroup and leave it to
>experienced cat people.
>
>--
>Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
>www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek
>
>Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
>www.catgalaxymedia.com
>
>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:03:45 +0100, Tristan Miller
>> > wrote:
>
>> Cats do not make suitable apartment pets. Then need access to the
>> outside world.
>>
>> And cats dictate the level of attention, not their human slaves :)
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
>> When the cat's away there are fewer hairs on the armchair.
>

This from a top-posting moron!

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 7th 04, 11:06 AM
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:20:43 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:56:58 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:34:26 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>>
>>When you take on the responsibility of homing any pet, one of the
>>important aspects is providing a proper environment for it. Cats need
>>space to roam, that is part of their nature.
>
>It's part of every animal's 'nature' to roam, establish territory and

It is, and where the animal's "nature" does not endanger humans (as it
would with a free roaming pack animal like the dog) then we have to do
our level best to provide the animal with what it needs.

>find food but we've moved on slightly from the laws of the jungle.
>Cats have been domesticated and as such are provided with food,
>shelter and territory. They adapt to their environment, just like we
>adapt to the structures imposed on us.
>
>> Dogs can't be given that for human safety reasons.
>
>Foxes are essentially canine but they have 'freedom to roam' and don't
>attack humans.

Foxes are wild animals, in addition they are not generally pack
animals.

>You only think it's normal for dogs to be walked around
>on leads because that's your experience.
>
>> Hamsters are not native to the UK,
>
>Nor are cats, they were introduced by the Romans.

Reintroduced.
>
>> but need proper housing.
>
>In a cage?

Certainly not.

> Why can't they be let out to roam? Because they might get
>eaten or killed? Ah, but it's their nature to forage for food!
>
>>People, unless imprisoned for a crime, do have a large
>>degree of freedom.
>
>We don't have freedom to do as we please. You can't wander onto
>someone's land and claim it as your own. You can't go around killing
>people and eating them just 'cos you're hungry. We impose rules for
>the sake of our civilisation - and that includes allowing animals in
>our care to have a healthy, fulfilled, good life.

Which cats get if they are treated correctly - as an indoor/outdoor
animal.

> It's your opinion
>that cats need access to fields and roads to have that, but many
>millions with happy indoor cat owners would disagree,

Oh I know there are many ignorant people out there, and many who do
know that they are abusing their cats by keeping them in.

>so you can't
>claim your opinion is any more valid than theirs.

Yes I can. Because my opinions are based on the opinions of experts
like the RSPCA, Cats Protection, well respected experts in cats, our
leading zoos, and the experiences of millions of cat owners around the
world.

The cat is the same - regardless of the country it lives in. The
overwhelming majority of cats around the world get to lead proper
lives with time outside. Why should American cats be any different?

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 7th 04, 11:06 AM
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:20:43 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:56:58 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:34:26 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>>
>>When you take on the responsibility of homing any pet, one of the
>>important aspects is providing a proper environment for it. Cats need
>>space to roam, that is part of their nature.
>
>It's part of every animal's 'nature' to roam, establish territory and

It is, and where the animal's "nature" does not endanger humans (as it
would with a free roaming pack animal like the dog) then we have to do
our level best to provide the animal with what it needs.

>find food but we've moved on slightly from the laws of the jungle.
>Cats have been domesticated and as such are provided with food,
>shelter and territory. They adapt to their environment, just like we
>adapt to the structures imposed on us.
>
>> Dogs can't be given that for human safety reasons.
>
>Foxes are essentially canine but they have 'freedom to roam' and don't
>attack humans.

Foxes are wild animals, in addition they are not generally pack
animals.

>You only think it's normal for dogs to be walked around
>on leads because that's your experience.
>
>> Hamsters are not native to the UK,
>
>Nor are cats, they were introduced by the Romans.

Reintroduced.
>
>> but need proper housing.
>
>In a cage?

Certainly not.

> Why can't they be let out to roam? Because they might get
>eaten or killed? Ah, but it's their nature to forage for food!
>
>>People, unless imprisoned for a crime, do have a large
>>degree of freedom.
>
>We don't have freedom to do as we please. You can't wander onto
>someone's land and claim it as your own. You can't go around killing
>people and eating them just 'cos you're hungry. We impose rules for
>the sake of our civilisation - and that includes allowing animals in
>our care to have a healthy, fulfilled, good life.

Which cats get if they are treated correctly - as an indoor/outdoor
animal.

> It's your opinion
>that cats need access to fields and roads to have that, but many
>millions with happy indoor cat owners would disagree,

Oh I know there are many ignorant people out there, and many who do
know that they are abusing their cats by keeping them in.

>so you can't
>claim your opinion is any more valid than theirs.

Yes I can. Because my opinions are based on the opinions of experts
like the RSPCA, Cats Protection, well respected experts in cats, our
leading zoos, and the experiences of millions of cat owners around the
world.

The cat is the same - regardless of the country it lives in. The
overwhelming majority of cats around the world get to lead proper
lives with time outside. Why should American cats be any different?

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 7th 04, 11:14 AM
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:55:02 -0000, "Gee" > wrote:

>
>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
>
>> Foxes have never been known to harm a healthy cat.
>
>Actually, not true.

Oh dear - Harpic Gee strikes again with another of her bare-faced
lies.

>And if you don't believe me (which you will not, because
>you always know everything the best, and instead will call me names he he,
>which I will not see because I am about to killfile you again like I have in
>other newsgroups,) check with RSPCA. They are the ones who confirmed to me
>that they do get cats attacked by foxes in. So even though cats may not be
>fox's first preference, if they are hungry enough they'll go for it.

Just so the dim witted cat hating Gee understands - there has never
been a documented case of a fox killing a healthy cat. Not one. Zero.
A number even smaller that the limited number of brain cells Harpic
Gee has (and that is really saying something.

Jus think about that Gee - not one single cat killed by a fox.
>
>Gee
>
And do you know how I know that? For years I've fought with the anti
fox hunting movement, and we have seen just about every justification
you can imagine put forward by the murdering fatherless sons as an
excuse for the barbaric "sport". But not once have they even dared to
suggest that there has ever been a case of a fox harming a cat. They
did produce one sheet about 15 years ago that claimed three babies had
been attacked in proceeding years, but that evidence proved worthless.
They claim attacks of domestic dogs, humans and of course farm animals
- but cats? Not once.

--
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.
February 7th 04, 11:14 AM
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:55:02 -0000, "Gee" > wrote:

>
>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
>
>> Foxes have never been known to harm a healthy cat.
>
>Actually, not true.

Oh dear - Harpic Gee strikes again with another of her bare-faced
lies.

>And if you don't believe me (which you will not, because
>you always know everything the best, and instead will call me names he he,
>which I will not see because I am about to killfile you again like I have in
>other newsgroups,) check with RSPCA. They are the ones who confirmed to me
>that they do get cats attacked by foxes in. So even though cats may not be
>fox's first preference, if they are hungry enough they'll go for it.

Just so the dim witted cat hating Gee understands - there has never
been a documented case of a fox killing a healthy cat. Not one. Zero.
A number even smaller that the limited number of brain cells Harpic
Gee has (and that is really saying something.

Jus think about that Gee - not one single cat killed by a fox.
>
>Gee
>
And do you know how I know that? For years I've fought with the anti
fox hunting movement, and we have seen just about every justification
you can imagine put forward by the murdering fatherless sons as an
excuse for the barbaric "sport". But not once have they even dared to
suggest that there has ever been a case of a fox harming a cat. They
did produce one sheet about 15 years ago that claimed three babies had
been attacked in proceeding years, but that evidence proved worthless.
They claim attacks of domestic dogs, humans and of course farm animals
- but cats? Not once.

--
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.

Jacqueline
February 7th 04, 12:24 PM
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:06:37 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:20:43 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
[snip]

[hamsters]
>>> but need proper housing.
>>
>>In a cage?
>
>Certainly not.

So you lambast hamster-keepers then? I bet you're a popular guy with
the kids.

>>We don't have freedom to do as we please. You can't wander onto
>>someone's land and claim it as your own. You can't go around killing
>>people and eating them just 'cos you're hungry. We impose rules for
>>the sake of our civilisation - and that includes allowing animals in
>>our care to have a healthy, fulfilled, good life.
>
>Which cats get if they are treated correctly - as an indoor/outdoor
>animal.

Which cats get if they are treated correctly in a safe indoor
environment.

>> It's your opinion
>>that cats need access to fields and roads to have that, but many
>>millions with happy indoor cat owners would disagree,
>
>Oh I know there are many ignorant people out there, and many who do
>know that they are abusing their cats by keeping them in.

I suggest you are the blinkered one.

>>so you can't
>>claim your opinion is any more valid than theirs.
>
>Yes I can. Because my opinions are based on the opinions of experts
>like the RSPCA, Cats Protection,

I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.

>well respected experts in cats, our
>leading zoos, and the experiences of millions of cat owners around the
>world.
>
>The cat is the same - regardless of the country it lives in. The
>overwhelming majority of cats around the world get to lead proper
>lives with time outside. Why should American cats be any different?

Blinkered, blinkered. I used to think like you, I thought it was
'normal' for cats to be let out because that's what I was brought up
to believe. But the overwhelming evidence against such a preposterous
idea shifted my opinion. Incidentally, while I let my cats roam free -
in an area I considered safe as I'm quite a distance from a main road
- I had cats shot at, one kicked until it had a dislocated hip, they
constantly came in with fleas and mites, and lumps of fur missing from
fights with other animals. I don't think that's an acceptable or safe
environment.

You come across as being someone quite old with very static opinions,
so I guess if you've thought like you do for 40 years you're unlikely
to change now. Shame.

Jacqueline
February 7th 04, 12:24 PM
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:06:37 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:20:43 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
[snip]

[hamsters]
>>> but need proper housing.
>>
>>In a cage?
>
>Certainly not.

So you lambast hamster-keepers then? I bet you're a popular guy with
the kids.

>>We don't have freedom to do as we please. You can't wander onto
>>someone's land and claim it as your own. You can't go around killing
>>people and eating them just 'cos you're hungry. We impose rules for
>>the sake of our civilisation - and that includes allowing animals in
>>our care to have a healthy, fulfilled, good life.
>
>Which cats get if they are treated correctly - as an indoor/outdoor
>animal.

Which cats get if they are treated correctly in a safe indoor
environment.

>> It's your opinion
>>that cats need access to fields and roads to have that, but many
>>millions with happy indoor cat owners would disagree,
>
>Oh I know there are many ignorant people out there, and many who do
>know that they are abusing their cats by keeping them in.

I suggest you are the blinkered one.

>>so you can't
>>claim your opinion is any more valid than theirs.
>
>Yes I can. Because my opinions are based on the opinions of experts
>like the RSPCA, Cats Protection,

I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.

>well respected experts in cats, our
>leading zoos, and the experiences of millions of cat owners around the
>world.
>
>The cat is the same - regardless of the country it lives in. The
>overwhelming majority of cats around the world get to lead proper
>lives with time outside. Why should American cats be any different?

Blinkered, blinkered. I used to think like you, I thought it was
'normal' for cats to be let out because that's what I was brought up
to believe. But the overwhelming evidence against such a preposterous
idea shifted my opinion. Incidentally, while I let my cats roam free -
in an area I considered safe as I'm quite a distance from a main road
- I had cats shot at, one kicked until it had a dislocated hip, they
constantly came in with fleas and mites, and lumps of fur missing from
fights with other animals. I don't think that's an acceptable or safe
environment.

You come across as being someone quite old with very static opinions,
so I guess if you've thought like you do for 40 years you're unlikely
to change now. Shame.

Ted Davis
February 7th 04, 05:20 PM
Ignore him. Killfile him. But don't cater to him by responding.

Based on my examination of his messages, I find that I cannot
distinguish between those from him and those that would be generated
by a badly written usnet troll robot program. That is, the sender of
those messages fail the Turing test for intelligence in that while it
can be distinguished from a normal human, it cannot be distinguished
from a machine.


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

Ted Davis
February 7th 04, 05:20 PM
Ignore him. Killfile him. But don't cater to him by responding.

Based on my examination of his messages, I find that I cannot
distinguish between those from him and those that would be generated
by a badly written usnet troll robot program. That is, the sender of
those messages fail the Turing test for intelligence in that while it
can be distinguished from a normal human, it cannot be distinguished
from a machine.


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

Cat Protector
February 7th 04, 06:24 PM
Yes, you are the top posting moron here.

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message

> This from a top-posting moron!
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> Light travels faster than sound. This is why you appear bright until
> we hear you talk.

Cat Protector
February 7th 04, 06:24 PM
Yes, you are the top posting moron here.

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message

> This from a top-posting moron!
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> Light travels faster than sound. This is why you appear bright until
> we hear you talk.

Bob Brenchley.
February 7th 04, 10:34 PM
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:24:35 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:06:37 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:20:43 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>[hamsters]
>>>> but need proper housing.
>>>
>>>In a cage?
>>
>>Certainly not.
>
>So you lambast hamster-keepers then? I bet you're a popular guy with
>the kids.

Keeping hamsters in a cage is cruel. There are proper ways to keep
them, though most people do not have the necessary room.
>
>>>We don't have freedom to do as we please. You can't wander onto
>>>someone's land and claim it as your own. You can't go around killing
>>>people and eating them just 'cos you're hungry. We impose rules for
>>>the sake of our civilisation - and that includes allowing animals in
>>>our care to have a healthy, fulfilled, good life.
>>
>>Which cats get if they are treated correctly - as an indoor/outdoor
>>animal.
>
>Which cats get if they are treated correctly in a safe indoor
>environment.

What cats get if they are unlucky enough to have an abusive owner is
24/7 imprisonment indoors.
>
>>> It's your opinion
>>>that cats need access to fields and roads to have that, but many
>>>millions with happy indoor cat owners would disagree,
>>
>>Oh I know there are many ignorant people out there, and many who do
>>know that they are abusing their cats by keeping them in.
>
>I suggest you are the blinkered one.

No, remember I'm one of the majority - a vast majority.

Even in the USA indoor only cats are in a minority - though there are
still far too many of them.
>
>>>so you can't
>>>claim your opinion is any more valid than theirs.
>>
>>Yes I can. Because my opinions are based on the opinions of experts
>>like the RSPCA, Cats Protection,
>
>I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
>environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
>Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.

Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
don't try that lie again.
>
>>well respected experts in cats, our
>>leading zoos, and the experiences of millions of cat owners around the
>>world.
>>
>>The cat is the same - regardless of the country it lives in. The
>>overwhelming majority of cats around the world get to lead proper
>>lives with time outside. Why should American cats be any different?
>
>Blinkered, blinkered. I used to think like you, I thought it was
>'normal' for cats to be let out because that's what I was brought up
>to believe. But the overwhelming evidence against such a preposterous
>idea shifted my opinion. Incidentally, while I let my cats roam free -
>in an area I considered safe as I'm quite a distance from a main road
>- I had cats shot at, one kicked until it had a dislocated hip, they
>constantly came in with fleas and mites, and lumps of fur missing from
>fights with other animals. I don't think that's an acceptable or safe
>environment.
>
>You come across as being someone quite old with very static opinions,
>so I guess if you've thought like you do for 40 years you're unlikely
>to change now. Shame.

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.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 7th 04, 10:34 PM
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:24:35 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:06:37 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:20:43 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>[hamsters]
>>>> but need proper housing.
>>>
>>>In a cage?
>>
>>Certainly not.
>
>So you lambast hamster-keepers then? I bet you're a popular guy with
>the kids.

Keeping hamsters in a cage is cruel. There are proper ways to keep
them, though most people do not have the necessary room.
>
>>>We don't have freedom to do as we please. You can't wander onto
>>>someone's land and claim it as your own. You can't go around killing
>>>people and eating them just 'cos you're hungry. We impose rules for
>>>the sake of our civilisation - and that includes allowing animals in
>>>our care to have a healthy, fulfilled, good life.
>>
>>Which cats get if they are treated correctly - as an indoor/outdoor
>>animal.
>
>Which cats get if they are treated correctly in a safe indoor
>environment.

What cats get if they are unlucky enough to have an abusive owner is
24/7 imprisonment indoors.
>
>>> It's your opinion
>>>that cats need access to fields and roads to have that, but many
>>>millions with happy indoor cat owners would disagree,
>>
>>Oh I know there are many ignorant people out there, and many who do
>>know that they are abusing their cats by keeping them in.
>
>I suggest you are the blinkered one.

No, remember I'm one of the majority - a vast majority.

Even in the USA indoor only cats are in a minority - though there are
still far too many of them.
>
>>>so you can't
>>>claim your opinion is any more valid than theirs.
>>
>>Yes I can. Because my opinions are based on the opinions of experts
>>like the RSPCA, Cats Protection,
>
>I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
>environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
>Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.

Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
don't try that lie again.
>
>>well respected experts in cats, our
>>leading zoos, and the experiences of millions of cat owners around the
>>world.
>>
>>The cat is the same - regardless of the country it lives in. The
>>overwhelming majority of cats around the world get to lead proper
>>lives with time outside. Why should American cats be any different?
>
>Blinkered, blinkered. I used to think like you, I thought it was
>'normal' for cats to be let out because that's what I was brought up
>to believe. But the overwhelming evidence against such a preposterous
>idea shifted my opinion. Incidentally, while I let my cats roam free -
>in an area I considered safe as I'm quite a distance from a main road
>- I had cats shot at, one kicked until it had a dislocated hip, they
>constantly came in with fleas and mites, and lumps of fur missing from
>fights with other animals. I don't think that's an acceptable or safe
>environment.
>
>You come across as being someone quite old with very static opinions,
>so I guess if you've thought like you do for 40 years you're unlikely
>to change now. Shame.

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.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 7th 04, 10:34 PM
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:20:23 -0600, Ted Davis
> wrote:

>Ignore him. Killfile him. But don't cater to him by responding.
>
>Based on my examination of his messages, I find that I cannot
>distinguish between those from him and those that would be generated
>by a badly written usnet troll robot program. That is, the sender of
>those messages fail the Turing test for intelligence in that while it
>can be distinguished from a normal human, it cannot be distinguished
>from a machine.
>
Now do shut up you stupid troll.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 7th 04, 10:34 PM
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:20:23 -0600, Ted Davis
> wrote:

>Ignore him. Killfile him. But don't cater to him by responding.
>
>Based on my examination of his messages, I find that I cannot
>distinguish between those from him and those that would be generated
>by a badly written usnet troll robot program. That is, the sender of
>those messages fail the Turing test for intelligence in that while it
>can be distinguished from a normal human, it cannot be distinguished
>from a machine.
>
Now do shut up you stupid troll.

--
Bob.

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

Jacqueline
February 8th 04, 12:19 PM
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
>>environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
>>Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.
>
>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>don't try that lie again.

It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats Protection
and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats. I was
vetted prior to their arrival and had check-ups afterwards. You're the
one full of lies, mate. I'm an active member of my branch and I could
give you countless examples of similar cases.

Your 'facts' are just fabrications, go on believing what you will but
you're certainly no authority to comment on anyone else's ability to
look after their animals.

Jacqueline
February 8th 04, 12:19 PM
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
>>environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
>>Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.
>
>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>don't try that lie again.

It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats Protection
and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats. I was
vetted prior to their arrival and had check-ups afterwards. You're the
one full of lies, mate. I'm an active member of my branch and I could
give you countless examples of similar cases.

Your 'facts' are just fabrications, go on believing what you will but
you're certainly no authority to comment on anyone else's ability to
look after their animals.

Jacqueline
February 8th 04, 12:26 PM
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>>I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
>>>environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
>>>Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.
>>
>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>>don't try that lie again.
>
>It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats Protection
>and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats.

....and may I just add the word 'healthy' to that sentence. My cats
were healthy, normal cats when I got them and remain so.

Jacqueline
February 8th 04, 12:26 PM
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>>I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
>>>environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
>>>Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.
>>
>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>>don't try that lie again.
>
>It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats Protection
>and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats.

....and may I just add the word 'healthy' to that sentence. My cats
were healthy, normal cats when I got them and remain so.

Bob Brenchley.
February 9th 04, 06:48 PM
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>>I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
>>>environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
>>>Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.
>>
>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>>don't try that lie again.
>
>It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats Protection
>and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats.

Then they were not healthy cats. Cats Protection do not home healthy
cats indoors only.

>I was
>vetted prior to their arrival and had check-ups afterwards. You're the
>one full of lies, mate. I'm an active member of my branch and I could
>give you countless examples of similar cases.

Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>
>Your 'facts' are just fabrications, go on believing what you will but
>you're certainly no authority to comment on anyone else's ability to
>look after their animals.

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.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 9th 04, 06:48 PM
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>>I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
>>>environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
>>>Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.
>>
>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>>don't try that lie again.
>
>It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats Protection
>and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats.

Then they were not healthy cats. Cats Protection do not home healthy
cats indoors only.

>I was
>vetted prior to their arrival and had check-ups afterwards. You're the
>one full of lies, mate. I'm an active member of my branch and I could
>give you countless examples of similar cases.

Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>
>Your 'facts' are just fabrications, go on believing what you will but
>you're certainly no authority to comment on anyone else's ability to
>look after their animals.

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.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 9th 04, 06:48 PM
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:26:31 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>>>I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
>>>>environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
>>>>Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.
>>>
>>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>>>don't try that lie again.
>>
>>It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats Protection
>>and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats.
>
>...and may I just add the word 'healthy' to that sentence. My cats
>were healthy, normal cats when I got them and remain so.

Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 9th 04, 06:48 PM
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:26:31 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>>>I'm a member of Cats Protection and we certainly home cats to indoor
>>>>environments and provide potential owners with how to care for them.
>>>>Take a look at this month's magazine, there's an article on just that.
>>>
>>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>>>don't try that lie again.
>>
>>It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats Protection
>>and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats.
>
>...and may I just add the word 'healthy' to that sentence. My cats
>were healthy, normal cats when I got them and remain so.

Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.

--
Bob.

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

Jacqueline
February 9th 04, 08:21 PM
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:48:11 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>>>don't try that lie again.

>Then they were not healthy cats.

lol! My vet would probably disagree, given then he's only seen them to
give them their boosters and be neutered.

>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.

>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.

Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts. I could scan in
pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!

Jacqueline
February 9th 04, 08:21 PM
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:48:11 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>>>don't try that lie again.

>Then they were not healthy cats.

lol! My vet would probably disagree, given then he's only seen them to
give them their boosters and be neutered.

>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.

>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.

Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts. I could scan in
pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!

Hans Schrøder
February 10th 04, 03:30 AM
"Jacqueline" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:48:11 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> > wrote:
>
> >>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
> >>>don't try that lie again.
>
> >Then they were not healthy cats.
>
> lol! My vet would probably disagree, given then he's only seen them to
> give them their boosters and be neutered.
>
> >Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>
> >Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>
> Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts. I could scan in
> pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
> women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
> still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
> encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!
>

Well, the only thing I found on the Cats Protection pages on indoor cats was
this about fresh air:
"Fresh air and sunshine are necessary to us all so if your cat or kitten is
confined to a flat without an enclosed balcony, fit a wire frame into one
window to admit air and sunshine without the risk of his falling from a
height."

I wouldn't call that a negative attitude against the idea of having indoor
cats.
Source: http://www.cats.org.uk/html/index.php?sect_id=54#exercise

But what does that matter to Brenchley and his lies?

Hans

Hans Schrøder
February 10th 04, 03:30 AM
"Jacqueline" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:48:11 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> > wrote:
>
> >>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
> >>>don't try that lie again.
>
> >Then they were not healthy cats.
>
> lol! My vet would probably disagree, given then he's only seen them to
> give them their boosters and be neutered.
>
> >Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>
> >Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>
> Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts. I could scan in
> pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
> women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
> still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
> encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!
>

Well, the only thing I found on the Cats Protection pages on indoor cats was
this about fresh air:
"Fresh air and sunshine are necessary to us all so if your cat or kitten is
confined to a flat without an enclosed balcony, fit a wire frame into one
window to admit air and sunshine without the risk of his falling from a
height."

I wouldn't call that a negative attitude against the idea of having indoor
cats.
Source: http://www.cats.org.uk/html/index.php?sect_id=54#exercise

But what does that matter to Brenchley and his lies?

Hans

Jacqueline
February 10th 04, 11:01 AM
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 04:30:39 +0100, "Hans Schrøder"
> wrote:

>"Jacqueline" > wrote in message
...
>> >Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>>
>> Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts. I could scan in
>> pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
>> women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
>> still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
>> encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!
>>
>
>Well, the only thing I found on the Cats Protection pages on indoor cats was
>this about fresh air:
>"Fresh air and sunshine are necessary to us all so if your cat or kitten is
>confined to a flat without an enclosed balcony, fit a wire frame into one
>window to admit air and sunshine without the risk of his falling from a
>height."
>
>I wouldn't call that a negative attitude against the idea of having indoor
>cats.
>Source: http://www.cats.org.uk/html/index.php?sect_id=54#exercise
>
>But what does that matter to Brenchley and his lies?

Indeed. I know what the facts are, I've been a member of Cats
Protection for about 7 years and have had plenty of experience at
'grass roots level' as he puts it. Silly man.

Jacqueline
February 10th 04, 11:01 AM
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 04:30:39 +0100, "Hans Schrøder"
> wrote:

>"Jacqueline" > wrote in message
...
>> >Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>>
>> Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts. I could scan in
>> pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
>> women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
>> still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
>> encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!
>>
>
>Well, the only thing I found on the Cats Protection pages on indoor cats was
>this about fresh air:
>"Fresh air and sunshine are necessary to us all so if your cat or kitten is
>confined to a flat without an enclosed balcony, fit a wire frame into one
>window to admit air and sunshine without the risk of his falling from a
>height."
>
>I wouldn't call that a negative attitude against the idea of having indoor
>cats.
>Source: http://www.cats.org.uk/html/index.php?sect_id=54#exercise
>
>But what does that matter to Brenchley and his lies?

Indeed. I know what the facts are, I've been a member of Cats
Protection for about 7 years and have had plenty of experience at
'grass roots level' as he puts it. Silly man.

Bob Brenchley.
February 23rd 04, 01:52 PM
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 04:30:39 +0100, "Hans Schrøder"
> wrote:

>> Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts. I could scan in
>> pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
>> women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
>> still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
>> encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!
>>
>
>Well, the only thing I found on the Cats Protection pages on indoor cats was
>this about fresh air:
>"Fresh air and sunshine are necessary to us all so if your cat or kitten is
>confined to a flat without an enclosed balcony, fit a wire frame into one
>window to admit air and sunshine without the risk of his falling from a
>height."
>
>I wouldn't call that a negative attitude against the idea of having indoor
>cats.
>Source: http://www.cats.org.uk/html/index.php?sect_id=54#exercise
>
>But what does that matter to Brenchley and his lies?
>
>Hans
>
The FACT is that none of the UK's major shelters, including Cats
Protection which is by far the largest, 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.

Bob Brenchley.
February 23rd 04, 01:52 PM
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:21:16 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:48:11 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>
>>>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>>>>don't try that lie again.
>
>>Then they were not healthy cats.
>
>lol! My vet would probably disagree, given then he's only seen them to
>give them their boosters and be neutered.
>
>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>
>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>
>Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts.

No, it doesn't change the fact that Cats Protection go out of their
way to ensure healthy cats get proper indoor/outdoor homes.

>I could scan in
>pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
>women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
>still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
>encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!

Stop telling lies and maybe you will get on better.


--
Bob.

How to become immortal: Read this signature tomorrow and follow its advice.

Bob Brenchley.
February 23rd 04, 01:52 PM
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 04:30:39 +0100, "Hans Schrøder"
> wrote:

>> Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts. I could scan in
>> pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
>> women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
>> still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
>> encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!
>>
>
>Well, the only thing I found on the Cats Protection pages on indoor cats was
>this about fresh air:
>"Fresh air and sunshine are necessary to us all so if your cat or kitten is
>confined to a flat without an enclosed balcony, fit a wire frame into one
>window to admit air and sunshine without the risk of his falling from a
>height."
>
>I wouldn't call that a negative attitude against the idea of having indoor
>cats.
>Source: http://www.cats.org.uk/html/index.php?sect_id=54#exercise
>
>But what does that matter to Brenchley and his lies?
>
>Hans
>
The FACT is that none of the UK's major shelters, including Cats
Protection which is by far the largest, 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.

Bob Brenchley.
February 23rd 04, 01:52 PM
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:21:16 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:48:11 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:18 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>
>>>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats to indoor only homes - so
>>>>don't try that lie again.
>
>>Then they were not healthy cats.
>
>lol! My vet would probably disagree, given then he's only seen them to
>give them their boosters and be neutered.
>
>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>
>>Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>
>Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts.

No, it doesn't change the fact that Cats Protection go out of their
way to ensure healthy cats get proper indoor/outdoor homes.

>I could scan in
>pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
>women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
>still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
>encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!

Stop telling lies and maybe you will get on better.


--
Bob.

How to become immortal: Read this signature tomorrow and follow its advice.

Bob Brenchley.
February 23rd 04, 01:52 PM
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:01:16 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 04:30:39 +0100, "Hans Schrøder"
> wrote:
>
>>"Jacqueline" > wrote in message
...
>>> >Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>>>
>>> Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts. I could scan in
>>> pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
>>> women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
>>> still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
>>> encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!
>>>
>>
>>Well, the only thing I found on the Cats Protection pages on indoor cats was
>>this about fresh air:
>>"Fresh air and sunshine are necessary to us all so if your cat or kitten is
>>confined to a flat without an enclosed balcony, fit a wire frame into one
>>window to admit air and sunshine without the risk of his falling from a
>>height."
>>
>>I wouldn't call that a negative attitude against the idea of having indoor
>>cats.
>>Source: http://www.cats.org.uk/html/index.php?sect_id=54#exercise
>>
>>But what does that matter to Brenchley and his lies?
>
>Indeed. I know what the facts are, I've been a member of Cats
>Protection for about 7 years and have had plenty of experience at
>'grass roots level' as he puts it. Silly man.

You are one of two things. Either a liar or just a troll. Which is it?

Cats Protection are full of dedicated people who work long hours to
better the lives of cats that come into their care. CP do not, except
as a desperate last resort, rehome healthy cats to indoor only
situations.


--
Bob.

How to become immortal: Read this signature tomorrow and follow its advice.

Bob Brenchley.
February 23rd 04, 01:52 PM
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:01:16 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 04:30:39 +0100, "Hans Schrøder"
> wrote:
>
>>"Jacqueline" > wrote in message
...
>>> >Cats Protection do not home healthy cats indoors only.
>>>
>>> Heard you the first time, doesn't change the facts. I could scan in
>>> pics of my cats, the adoption contracts and forward the names of the
>>> women who fostered and approved me at the vetting stage - but you'd
>>> still not believe me, would you? You're the strangest troll I've ever
>>> encountered in all the years I've been using Usenet!
>>>
>>
>>Well, the only thing I found on the Cats Protection pages on indoor cats was
>>this about fresh air:
>>"Fresh air and sunshine are necessary to us all so if your cat or kitten is
>>confined to a flat without an enclosed balcony, fit a wire frame into one
>>window to admit air and sunshine without the risk of his falling from a
>>height."
>>
>>I wouldn't call that a negative attitude against the idea of having indoor
>>cats.
>>Source: http://www.cats.org.uk/html/index.php?sect_id=54#exercise
>>
>>But what does that matter to Brenchley and his lies?
>
>Indeed. I know what the facts are, I've been a member of Cats
>Protection for about 7 years and have had plenty of experience at
>'grass roots level' as he puts it. Silly man.

You are one of two things. Either a liar or just a troll. Which is it?

Cats Protection are full of dedicated people who work long hours to
better the lives of cats that come into their care. CP do not, except
as a desperate last resort, rehome healthy cats to indoor only
situations.


--
Bob.

How to become immortal: Read this signature tomorrow and follow its advice.

Jacqueline
February 23rd 04, 03:27 PM
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:52:33 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:01:16 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>Indeed. I know what the facts are, I've been a member of Cats
>>Protection for about 7 years and have had plenty of experience at
>>'grass roots level' as he puts it. Silly man.
>
>You are one of two things. Either a liar or just a troll. Which is it?

Neither, you hideously obnoxious man, I have no reason to lie, nor the
time nor inclination to troll anyone. You said CP never rehome healthy
indoor cats, I have the evidence to the contrary which I'm happy to
forward to you or anybody else.

>Cats Protection are full of dedicated people who work long hours to
>better the lives of cats that come into their care. CP do not, except
>as a desperate last resort, rehome healthy cats to indoor only
>situations.

I know who they are, I've been a member for years, have helped rehome
cats myself, AND currently have 3 of my own. If you're happy to go on
peddling your own agenda on these newsgroups, fair enough, but don't
insult me for pointing out the bias in your argument. The CP *do*
rehome indoor cats - fact.

Jacqueline
February 23rd 04, 03:27 PM
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:52:33 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:01:16 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>Indeed. I know what the facts are, I've been a member of Cats
>>Protection for about 7 years and have had plenty of experience at
>>'grass roots level' as he puts it. Silly man.
>
>You are one of two things. Either a liar or just a troll. Which is it?

Neither, you hideously obnoxious man, I have no reason to lie, nor the
time nor inclination to troll anyone. You said CP never rehome healthy
indoor cats, I have the evidence to the contrary which I'm happy to
forward to you or anybody else.

>Cats Protection are full of dedicated people who work long hours to
>better the lives of cats that come into their care. CP do not, except
>as a desperate last resort, rehome healthy cats to indoor only
>situations.

I know who they are, I've been a member for years, have helped rehome
cats myself, AND currently have 3 of my own. If you're happy to go on
peddling your own agenda on these newsgroups, fair enough, but don't
insult me for pointing out the bias in your argument. The CP *do*
rehome indoor cats - fact.

Fan
February 23rd 04, 05:41 PM
>The FACT is that none of the UK's major shelters, including Cats
>Protection which is by far the largest, 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.
>
This is an exact copy of two e-mail replies that I got from the Cats
Protection League which you keep referring to in this thread. I got
tired of one side saying the policy was one thing and the other side
saying it was the exact opposite so I went to the source.

One may debate what is "best", but what the policy of CPL is should
not be in dispute. Many posts in this thread concerned what that
policy is. This should end that portion of the debate.

There are two e-mails because there was some confusion over my goal in
asking the question. Originally, they thought I was applying to adopt
a cat. The answers are essentially the same. The discussions about the
number of animals and adoption procedures were in reply to other
questions that I was interested in personally. They have nothing to do
with this discussion, but I didn't want to be accused of blanking out
anything significant.

I believe they prove, beyond any doubt, that indoor-only cat homes are
acceptable to CPL. In some, if not many cases, they are discouraged,
but they indeed are acceptable. This is total fact, no opinion, no
conjecture, no theory, but 100% fact. My personal intrepretation is
that a non-petigreed cat that is used to being indoors only would also
be allowed in an indoor-only home.

Only the personally identifying information has been blanked out.


Subject: Query
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:39:58 -0000
From: "Lesley Bxxxxxxxxx" >
To:




Hi Xxxxxxxx

Your enquiry has been passed to me. The definitive answers are as
follows:-

Cats Protection do rehome cats as indoor-only under certain
circumstances and if we think it is in their best interest.

We rehome approximately 60,000 cats nationwide in a year but do not
have the figures to break it down into cities at this time; we do
however
carry out prehome checks as a matter of course, followed up by post
home when possible.

I would be interested to know which organisation you work for?

Lesley Bxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Subject: Adoption Policies
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:33:23 -0000
From: "Tracey Axxxxx" >
To:




Dear Xxxxxxxx,

In reply to your recent email enquiries regarding our adoption
policies, we carry out home checks primarily to establish beyond doubt
that it is a genuine home and that we are not in danger of handing
over a cat to an uncertain future.

How to assess a 'good' home and a 'good' owner is difficult, we ask a
number of questions to try and aid the decision. One of which is
location for example living near busy roads, railway crossings, works
entrances etc. In cases such as these we would not be able to home a
kitten or a nervous or deaf cat, however it may be that we are able to
home an indoor cat in such places.

In some circumstances we do rehome indoor cats, the main reason for
this is medical but there are occasions where we have Pedigree cats
which would need to kept indoors. If a cat is used to going outside,
then we would not home it to someone who wants an indoor cat, hence
the reason behind doing home checks we try and match the cats
requirements to that of the prospective new owners.

I hope this helps answer your questions, if I can help any further
then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Tracey Axxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Fan
February 23rd 04, 05:41 PM
>The FACT is that none of the UK's major shelters, including Cats
>Protection which is by far the largest, 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.
>
This is an exact copy of two e-mail replies that I got from the Cats
Protection League which you keep referring to in this thread. I got
tired of one side saying the policy was one thing and the other side
saying it was the exact opposite so I went to the source.

One may debate what is "best", but what the policy of CPL is should
not be in dispute. Many posts in this thread concerned what that
policy is. This should end that portion of the debate.

There are two e-mails because there was some confusion over my goal in
asking the question. Originally, they thought I was applying to adopt
a cat. The answers are essentially the same. The discussions about the
number of animals and adoption procedures were in reply to other
questions that I was interested in personally. They have nothing to do
with this discussion, but I didn't want to be accused of blanking out
anything significant.

I believe they prove, beyond any doubt, that indoor-only cat homes are
acceptable to CPL. In some, if not many cases, they are discouraged,
but they indeed are acceptable. This is total fact, no opinion, no
conjecture, no theory, but 100% fact. My personal intrepretation is
that a non-petigreed cat that is used to being indoors only would also
be allowed in an indoor-only home.

Only the personally identifying information has been blanked out.


Subject: Query
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:39:58 -0000
From: "Lesley Bxxxxxxxxx" >
To:




Hi Xxxxxxxx

Your enquiry has been passed to me. The definitive answers are as
follows:-

Cats Protection do rehome cats as indoor-only under certain
circumstances and if we think it is in their best interest.

We rehome approximately 60,000 cats nationwide in a year but do not
have the figures to break it down into cities at this time; we do
however
carry out prehome checks as a matter of course, followed up by post
home when possible.

I would be interested to know which organisation you work for?

Lesley Bxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Subject: Adoption Policies
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:33:23 -0000
From: "Tracey Axxxxx" >
To:




Dear Xxxxxxxx,

In reply to your recent email enquiries regarding our adoption
policies, we carry out home checks primarily to establish beyond doubt
that it is a genuine home and that we are not in danger of handing
over a cat to an uncertain future.

How to assess a 'good' home and a 'good' owner is difficult, we ask a
number of questions to try and aid the decision. One of which is
location for example living near busy roads, railway crossings, works
entrances etc. In cases such as these we would not be able to home a
kitten or a nervous or deaf cat, however it may be that we are able to
home an indoor cat in such places.

In some circumstances we do rehome indoor cats, the main reason for
this is medical but there are occasions where we have Pedigree cats
which would need to kept indoors. If a cat is used to going outside,
then we would not home it to someone who wants an indoor cat, hence
the reason behind doing home checks we try and match the cats
requirements to that of the prospective new owners.

I hope this helps answer your questions, if I can help any further
then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Tracey Axxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Bob Brenchley.
February 25th 04, 07:46 PM
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:27:31 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:52:33 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:01:16 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>>Indeed. I know what the facts are, I've been a member of Cats
>>>Protection for about 7 years and have had plenty of experience at
>>>'grass roots level' as he puts it. Silly man.
>>
>>You are one of two things. Either a liar or just a troll. Which is it?
>
>Neither, you hideously obnoxious man, I have no reason to lie, nor the
>time nor inclination to troll anyone.

Well the choice is there, you have to be one or the other. I'm tending
towards troll.

> You said CP never rehome healthy
>indoor cats, I have the evidence to the contrary which I'm happy to
>forward to you or anybody else.

The FACTS (as often given) are simple. None of the UK's major shelters
(Cats Protection, RSPCA/SSPCA, Battersea) which account for an
estimated 80% of rehomings in this country, 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.

Now this has been confirmed on numerous occasions by people who work
at the grass roots level - actually finding homes for cats.
>
>>Cats Protection are full of dedicated people who work long hours to
>>better the lives of cats that come into their care. CP do not, except
>>as a desperate last resort, rehome healthy cats to indoor only
>>situations.
>
>I know who they are, I've been a member for years, have helped rehome
>cats myself, AND currently have 3 of my own. If you're happy to go on
>peddling your own agenda on these newsgroups, fair enough, but don't
>insult me for pointing out the bias in your argument. The CP *do*
>rehome indoor cats - fact.

Of course little moron, CP do home old, disabled and sick cats
indoors. What they do NOT do, except as a last resort (which they see
as an admission of failure) is home a healthy cat to an abuser like
yourself who finds it acceptable to keep a normal healthy cat indoors
only.

Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 25th 04, 07:46 PM
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:27:31 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:52:33 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:01:16 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>>Indeed. I know what the facts are, I've been a member of Cats
>>>Protection for about 7 years and have had plenty of experience at
>>>'grass roots level' as he puts it. Silly man.
>>
>>You are one of two things. Either a liar or just a troll. Which is it?
>
>Neither, you hideously obnoxious man, I have no reason to lie, nor the
>time nor inclination to troll anyone.

Well the choice is there, you have to be one or the other. I'm tending
towards troll.

> You said CP never rehome healthy
>indoor cats, I have the evidence to the contrary which I'm happy to
>forward to you or anybody else.

The FACTS (as often given) are simple. None of the UK's major shelters
(Cats Protection, RSPCA/SSPCA, Battersea) which account for an
estimated 80% of rehomings in this country, 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.

Now this has been confirmed on numerous occasions by people who work
at the grass roots level - actually finding homes for cats.
>
>>Cats Protection are full of dedicated people who work long hours to
>>better the lives of cats that come into their care. CP do not, except
>>as a desperate last resort, rehome healthy cats to indoor only
>>situations.
>
>I know who they are, I've been a member for years, have helped rehome
>cats myself, AND currently have 3 of my own. If you're happy to go on
>peddling your own agenda on these newsgroups, fair enough, but don't
>insult me for pointing out the bias in your argument. The CP *do*
>rehome indoor cats - fact.

Of course little moron, CP do home old, disabled and sick cats
indoors. What they do NOT do, except as a last resort (which they see
as an admission of failure) is home a healthy cat to an abuser like
yourself who finds it acceptable to keep a normal healthy cat indoors
only.

Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 25th 04, 07:50 PM
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:41:19 -0600, Fan <> wrote:

>This is an exact copy of two e-mail replies that I got from the Cats
>Protection League which you keep referring to in this thread. I got
>tired of one side saying the policy was one thing and the other side
>saying it was the exact opposite so I went to the source.
>
>One may debate what is "best", but what the policy of CPL is should
>not be in dispute. Many posts in this thread concerned what that
>policy is. This should end that portion of the debate.
>
[snip]
>
>In some circumstances we do rehome indoor cats, the main reason for
>this is medical but there are occasions where we have Pedigree cats
>which would need to kept indoors. If a cat is used to going outside,
>then we would not home it to someone who wants an indoor cat, hence
>the reason behind doing home checks we try and match the cats
>requirements to that of the prospective new owners.
>

Thank you, I think that paragraph in particular sums things up very
well and I hope that put an end to the claims that Cats Protection
would normally home a healthy cat to an indoor only situation.

Sick, Yes. Disabled, Yes. Normal healthy cat, NO WAY except as an
admission of failure.

--
Bob.

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be
Light." And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

Bob Brenchley.
February 25th 04, 07:50 PM
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:41:19 -0600, Fan <> wrote:

>This is an exact copy of two e-mail replies that I got from the Cats
>Protection League which you keep referring to in this thread. I got
>tired of one side saying the policy was one thing and the other side
>saying it was the exact opposite so I went to the source.
>
>One may debate what is "best", but what the policy of CPL is should
>not be in dispute. Many posts in this thread concerned what that
>policy is. This should end that portion of the debate.
>
[snip]
>
>In some circumstances we do rehome indoor cats, the main reason for
>this is medical but there are occasions where we have Pedigree cats
>which would need to kept indoors. If a cat is used to going outside,
>then we would not home it to someone who wants an indoor cat, hence
>the reason behind doing home checks we try and match the cats
>requirements to that of the prospective new owners.
>

Thank you, I think that paragraph in particular sums things up very
well and I hope that put an end to the claims that Cats Protection
would normally home a healthy cat to an indoor only situation.

Sick, Yes. Disabled, Yes. Normal healthy cat, NO WAY except as an
admission of failure.

--
Bob.

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be
Light." And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

Jacqueline
February 25th 04, 08:51 PM
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:46:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>Of course little moron, CP do home old, disabled and sick cats
>indoors. What they do NOT do, except as a last resort (which they see
>as an admission of failure) is home a healthy cat to an abuser like
>yourself who finds it acceptable to keep a normal healthy cat indoors
>only.
>
>Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

*yawn*

I object to my cats being called failures. I'll happily forward you my
area co-ordinator's contact details and you can go tell her that.

Jacqueline
February 25th 04, 08:51 PM
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:46:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>Of course little moron, CP do home old, disabled and sick cats
>indoors. What they do NOT do, except as a last resort (which they see
>as an admission of failure) is home a healthy cat to an abuser like
>yourself who finds it acceptable to keep a normal healthy cat indoors
>only.
>
>Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

*yawn*

I object to my cats being called failures. I'll happily forward you my
area co-ordinator's contact details and you can go tell her that.

Jacqueline
February 25th 04, 09:01 PM
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:50:48 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:41:19 -0600, Fan <> wrote:
>>In some circumstances we do rehome indoor cats, the main reason for
>>this is medical but there are occasions where we have Pedigree cats
>>which would need to kept indoors. If a cat is used to going outside,
>>then we would not home it to someone who wants an indoor cat, hence
>>the reason behind doing home checks we try and match the cats
>>requirements to that of the prospective new owners.
>>
>
>Thank you, I think that paragraph in particular sums things up very
>well and I hope that put an end to the claims that Cats Protection
>would normally home a healthy cat to an indoor only situation.

So, from that statement, the CP as a matter of course rehome
pedigree cats to indoor only houses. Do you think this is acceptible?
And if so, why should pedigree cats be treated any differently?
Bearing in mind a pedigree cat is less likely to be stolen than a
moggy, there's no reason why it sould be treated as any differently.

>Sick, Yes. Disabled, Yes. Normal healthy cat, NO WAY except as an
>admission of failure.

Please point me to the bit in that quote that says homing an indoor
cat is an 'admission of failture'.

It's very odd, you and I seem to have interpreted that statement
completely differently. I took the 'we do rehome indoor cats' to mean
just that. I never said they *only* rehome indoor cats, I never said
they promote indoor cats, but they do rehome cats to indoor homes,
particularly if it's safer in the circumstances. Curiously, I know of
one situation recently - 2 littermates, 8 months old, very healthy and
active, in the CP's fostercare. There was a choice between two homes -
one with a garden, one in a flat. The CP went with the flat option.

I really don't know why you're so obnoxious and defensive Mr
Brenchley, I just don't get your motives.

Jacqueline
February 25th 04, 09:01 PM
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:50:48 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:41:19 -0600, Fan <> wrote:
>>In some circumstances we do rehome indoor cats, the main reason for
>>this is medical but there are occasions where we have Pedigree cats
>>which would need to kept indoors. If a cat is used to going outside,
>>then we would not home it to someone who wants an indoor cat, hence
>>the reason behind doing home checks we try and match the cats
>>requirements to that of the prospective new owners.
>>
>
>Thank you, I think that paragraph in particular sums things up very
>well and I hope that put an end to the claims that Cats Protection
>would normally home a healthy cat to an indoor only situation.

So, from that statement, the CP as a matter of course rehome
pedigree cats to indoor only houses. Do you think this is acceptible?
And if so, why should pedigree cats be treated any differently?
Bearing in mind a pedigree cat is less likely to be stolen than a
moggy, there's no reason why it sould be treated as any differently.

>Sick, Yes. Disabled, Yes. Normal healthy cat, NO WAY except as an
>admission of failure.

Please point me to the bit in that quote that says homing an indoor
cat is an 'admission of failture'.

It's very odd, you and I seem to have interpreted that statement
completely differently. I took the 'we do rehome indoor cats' to mean
just that. I never said they *only* rehome indoor cats, I never said
they promote indoor cats, but they do rehome cats to indoor homes,
particularly if it's safer in the circumstances. Curiously, I know of
one situation recently - 2 littermates, 8 months old, very healthy and
active, in the CP's fostercare. There was a choice between two homes -
one with a garden, one in a flat. The CP went with the flat option.

I really don't know why you're so obnoxious and defensive Mr
Brenchley, I just don't get your motives.

Cat Protector
February 26th 04, 04:52 AM
I see Bob is at it again. Now he is putting down cat rescue and posting
things that are not true. I wonder what other things he'll pull out of his
ass?

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:27:31 +0000, Jacqueline
> > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:52:33 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:01:16 +0000, Jacqueline
> > wrote:
> >>>Indeed. I know what the facts are, I've been a member of Cats
> >>>Protection for about 7 years and have had plenty of experience at
> >>>'grass roots level' as he puts it. Silly man.
> >>
> >>You are one of two things. Either a liar or just a troll. Which is it?
> >
> >Neither, you hideously obnoxious man, I have no reason to lie, nor the
> >time nor inclination to troll anyone.
>
> Well the choice is there, you have to be one or the other. I'm tending
> towards troll.
>
> > You said CP never rehome healthy
> >indoor cats, I have the evidence to the contrary which I'm happy to
> >forward to you or anybody else.
>
> The FACTS (as often given) are simple. None of the UK's major shelters
> (Cats Protection, RSPCA/SSPCA, Battersea) which account for an
> estimated 80% of rehomings in this country, 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.
>
> Now this has been confirmed on numerous occasions by people who work
> at the grass roots level - actually finding homes for cats.
> >
> >>Cats Protection are full of dedicated people who work long hours to
> >>better the lives of cats that come into their care. CP do not, except
> >>as a desperate last resort, rehome healthy cats to indoor only
> >>situations.
> >
> >I know who they are, I've been a member for years, have helped rehome
> >cats myself, AND currently have 3 of my own. If you're happy to go on
> >peddling your own agenda on these newsgroups, fair enough, but don't
> >insult me for pointing out the bias in your argument. The CP *do*
> >rehome indoor cats - fact.
>
> Of course little moron, CP do home old, disabled and sick cats
> indoors. What they do NOT do, except as a last resort (which they see
> as an admission of failure) is home a healthy cat to an abuser like
> yourself who finds it acceptable to keep a normal healthy cat indoors
> only.
>
> Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> Alas, your intelligence qualifies you more for the primordial soup
> than for the "master race." Recognize your limitations. Then shut
> up.
>

Cat Protector
February 26th 04, 04:52 AM
I see Bob is at it again. Now he is putting down cat rescue and posting
things that are not true. I wonder what other things he'll pull out of his
ass?

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:27:31 +0000, Jacqueline
> > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:52:33 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:01:16 +0000, Jacqueline
> > wrote:
> >>>Indeed. I know what the facts are, I've been a member of Cats
> >>>Protection for about 7 years and have had plenty of experience at
> >>>'grass roots level' as he puts it. Silly man.
> >>
> >>You are one of two things. Either a liar or just a troll. Which is it?
> >
> >Neither, you hideously obnoxious man, I have no reason to lie, nor the
> >time nor inclination to troll anyone.
>
> Well the choice is there, you have to be one or the other. I'm tending
> towards troll.
>
> > You said CP never rehome healthy
> >indoor cats, I have the evidence to the contrary which I'm happy to
> >forward to you or anybody else.
>
> The FACTS (as often given) are simple. None of the UK's major shelters
> (Cats Protection, RSPCA/SSPCA, Battersea) which account for an
> estimated 80% of rehomings in this country, 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.
>
> Now this has been confirmed on numerous occasions by people who work
> at the grass roots level - actually finding homes for cats.
> >
> >>Cats Protection are full of dedicated people who work long hours to
> >>better the lives of cats that come into their care. CP do not, except
> >>as a desperate last resort, rehome healthy cats to indoor only
> >>situations.
> >
> >I know who they are, I've been a member for years, have helped rehome
> >cats myself, AND currently have 3 of my own. If you're happy to go on
> >peddling your own agenda on these newsgroups, fair enough, but don't
> >insult me for pointing out the bias in your argument. The CP *do*
> >rehome indoor cats - fact.
>
> Of course little moron, CP do home old, disabled and sick cats
> indoors. What they do NOT do, except as a last resort (which they see
> as an admission of failure) is home a healthy cat to an abuser like
> yourself who finds it acceptable to keep a normal healthy cat indoors
> only.
>
> Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> Alas, your intelligence qualifies you more for the primordial soup
> than for the "master race." Recognize your limitations. Then shut
> up.
>

Bob Brenchley.
February 26th 04, 09:53 AM
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:51:00 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:46:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>Of course little moron, CP do home old, disabled and sick cats
>>indoors. What they do NOT do, except as a last resort (which they see
>>as an admission of failure) is home a healthy cat to an abuser like
>>yourself who finds it acceptable to keep a normal healthy cat indoors
>>only.
>>
>>Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
>
>*yawn*
>
>I object to my cats being called failures. I'll happily forward you my
>area co-ordinator's contact details and you can go tell her that.

Either your cats fit one of the very short list of categories where CP
will rehome indoors, or your local CP failed in its duty to find them
proper homes.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 26th 04, 09:53 AM
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:51:00 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:46:05 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>Of course little moron, CP do home old, disabled and sick cats
>>indoors. What they do NOT do, except as a last resort (which they see
>>as an admission of failure) is home a healthy cat to an abuser like
>>yourself who finds it acceptable to keep a normal healthy cat indoors
>>only.
>>
>>Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
>
>*yawn*
>
>I object to my cats being called failures. I'll happily forward you my
>area co-ordinator's contact details and you can go tell her that.

Either your cats fit one of the very short list of categories where CP
will rehome indoors, or your local CP failed in its duty to find them
proper homes.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 26th 04, 09:54 AM
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:52:46 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>I see Bob is at it again. Now he is putting down cat rescue and posting
>things that are not true. I wonder what other things he'll pull out of his
>ass?

Why is it that top-posting moronic trolls have this fixation with
donkeys?

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 26th 04, 09:54 AM
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:52:46 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>I see Bob is at it again. Now he is putting down cat rescue and posting
>things that are not true. I wonder what other things he'll pull out of his
>ass?

Why is it that top-posting moronic trolls have this fixation with
donkeys?

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 26th 04, 10:01 AM
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:01:05 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:50:48 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:41:19 -0600, Fan <> wrote:
>>>In some circumstances we do rehome indoor cats, the main reason for
>>>this is medical but there are occasions where we have Pedigree cats
>>>which would need to kept indoors. If a cat is used to going outside,
>>>then we would not home it to someone who wants an indoor cat, hence
>>>the reason behind doing home checks we try and match the cats
>>>requirements to that of the prospective new owners.
>>>
>>
>>Thank you, I think that paragraph in particular sums things up very
>>well and I hope that put an end to the claims that Cats Protection
>>would normally home a healthy cat to an indoor only situation.
>
>So, from that statement, the CP as a matter of course rehome
>pedigree cats to indoor only houses.

Only those that are disabled by their breeding.

>Do you think this is acceptible?
>And if so, why should pedigree cats be treated any differently?

Because many misbred cats suffer as a result of their breeders
sickening idea of what makes a good cat.

>Bearing in mind a pedigree cat is less likely to be stolen than a
>moggy, there's no reason why it sould be treated as any differently.

I'm sure you think you had a point to make there, but you failed.
>
>>Sick, Yes. Disabled, Yes. Normal healthy cat, NO WAY except as an
>>admission of failure.
>
>Please point me to the bit in that quote that says homing an indoor
>cat is an 'admission of failture'.

Please point me at the bit in the quote where is says it isn't.
>
>It's very odd, you and I seem to have interpreted that statement
>completely differently. I took the 'we do rehome indoor cats' to mean
>just that.

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

> I never said they *only* rehome indoor cats, I never said
>they promote indoor cats, but they do rehome cats to indoor homes,

Only the sick, disabled, very old or those cats that have been waiting
for homes for so long that indoor only is seen as the lesser of two
evils - in other words they have failed to find them a proper home.

>particularly if it's safer in the circumstances. Curiously, I know of
>one situation recently - 2 littermates, 8 months old, very healthy and
>active, in the CP's fostercare. There was a choice between two homes -
>one with a garden, one in a flat. The CP went with the flat option.

Pull the other one.
>
>I really don't know why you're so obnoxious and defensive Mr
>Brenchley, I just don't get your motives.
>
To save cats from abusers like you.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 26th 04, 10:01 AM
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:01:05 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:50:48 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:41:19 -0600, Fan <> wrote:
>>>In some circumstances we do rehome indoor cats, the main reason for
>>>this is medical but there are occasions where we have Pedigree cats
>>>which would need to kept indoors. If a cat is used to going outside,
>>>then we would not home it to someone who wants an indoor cat, hence
>>>the reason behind doing home checks we try and match the cats
>>>requirements to that of the prospective new owners.
>>>
>>
>>Thank you, I think that paragraph in particular sums things up very
>>well and I hope that put an end to the claims that Cats Protection
>>would normally home a healthy cat to an indoor only situation.
>
>So, from that statement, the CP as a matter of course rehome
>pedigree cats to indoor only houses.

Only those that are disabled by their breeding.

>Do you think this is acceptible?
>And if so, why should pedigree cats be treated any differently?

Because many misbred cats suffer as a result of their breeders
sickening idea of what makes a good cat.

>Bearing in mind a pedigree cat is less likely to be stolen than a
>moggy, there's no reason why it sould be treated as any differently.

I'm sure you think you had a point to make there, but you failed.
>
>>Sick, Yes. Disabled, Yes. Normal healthy cat, NO WAY except as an
>>admission of failure.
>
>Please point me to the bit in that quote that says homing an indoor
>cat is an 'admission of failture'.

Please point me at the bit in the quote where is says it isn't.
>
>It's very odd, you and I seem to have interpreted that statement
>completely differently. I took the 'we do rehome indoor cats' to mean
>just that.

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

> I never said they *only* rehome indoor cats, I never said
>they promote indoor cats, but they do rehome cats to indoor homes,

Only the sick, disabled, very old or those cats that have been waiting
for homes for so long that indoor only is seen as the lesser of two
evils - in other words they have failed to find them a proper home.

>particularly if it's safer in the circumstances. Curiously, I know of
>one situation recently - 2 littermates, 8 months old, very healthy and
>active, in the CP's fostercare. There was a choice between two homes -
>one with a garden, one in a flat. The CP went with the flat option.

Pull the other one.
>
>I really don't know why you're so obnoxious and defensive Mr
>Brenchley, I just don't get your motives.
>
To save cats from abusers like you.

--
Bob.

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

Jacqueline
February 26th 04, 10:40 AM
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:01:33 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:01:05 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>Please point me to the bit in that quote that says homing an indoor
>>cat is an 'admission of failture'.
>
>Please point me at the bit in the quote where is says it isn't.

*shakes head* Ok, if you can't conduct a simple conversation I'll
adopt your posting style.

You're a blathering old fool.

>>It's very odd, you and I seem to have interpreted that statement
>>completely differently. I took the 'we do rehome indoor cats' to mean
>>just that.
>
>Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

As does yours. Blinkered.

>> I never said they *only* rehome indoor cats, I never said
>>they promote indoor cats, but they do rehome cats to indoor homes,
>
>Only the sick, disabled, very old or those cats that have been waiting
>for homes for so long that indoor only is seen as the lesser of two
>evils - in other words they have failed to find them a proper home.
>
>>particularly if it's safer in the circumstances. Curiously, I know of
>>one situation recently - 2 littermates, 8 months old, very healthy and
>>active, in the CP's fostercare. There was a choice between two homes -
>>one with a garden, one in a flat. The CP went with the flat option.
>
>Pull the other one.

It's absolutely true, I assure you. Believe what you want, but I'm the
one with the facts and experience, all you have is a cut/paste
standard reply and a bizarrely worrying approach to cat 'care'. I've
repeatedly offered you evidence - not my evidence, but the experience
of my local branch - and you continue to rubbish my comments. I can't
argue with that,

>>I really don't know why you're so obnoxious and defensive Mr
>>Brenchley, I just don't get your motives.
>>
>To save cats from abusers like you.

lol! ******.You really haven't a clue... I sincerely hope you don't
have cats.

Jacqueline
February 26th 04, 10:40 AM
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:01:33 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:01:05 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>Please point me to the bit in that quote that says homing an indoor
>>cat is an 'admission of failture'.
>
>Please point me at the bit in the quote where is says it isn't.

*shakes head* Ok, if you can't conduct a simple conversation I'll
adopt your posting style.

You're a blathering old fool.

>>It's very odd, you and I seem to have interpreted that statement
>>completely differently. I took the 'we do rehome indoor cats' to mean
>>just that.
>
>Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

As does yours. Blinkered.

>> I never said they *only* rehome indoor cats, I never said
>>they promote indoor cats, but they do rehome cats to indoor homes,
>
>Only the sick, disabled, very old or those cats that have been waiting
>for homes for so long that indoor only is seen as the lesser of two
>evils - in other words they have failed to find them a proper home.
>
>>particularly if it's safer in the circumstances. Curiously, I know of
>>one situation recently - 2 littermates, 8 months old, very healthy and
>>active, in the CP's fostercare. There was a choice between two homes -
>>one with a garden, one in a flat. The CP went with the flat option.
>
>Pull the other one.

It's absolutely true, I assure you. Believe what you want, but I'm the
one with the facts and experience, all you have is a cut/paste
standard reply and a bizarrely worrying approach to cat 'care'. I've
repeatedly offered you evidence - not my evidence, but the experience
of my local branch - and you continue to rubbish my comments. I can't
argue with that,

>>I really don't know why you're so obnoxious and defensive Mr
>>Brenchley, I just don't get your motives.
>>
>To save cats from abusers like you.

lol! ******.You really haven't a clue... I sincerely hope you don't
have cats.

Cat Protector
February 26th 04, 04:26 PM
What's the matter Bob? Disappointed that I am right and you are wrong. Every
time you post on here you put your foot in your mouth. So far you spoken out
against cat rescue, keeping cats indoors where they are safe, and of course
you have advised people it is ok to declaw their cats. No matter what proof
we have posted to you, you still don't hesitate to post like you are an
expert and that your position is right. Why can't you just admit that you
know absolutely nothing about cats?

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:52:46 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> > wrote:
>
> >I see Bob is at it again. Now he is putting down cat rescue and posting
> >things that are not true. I wonder what other things he'll pull out of
his
> >ass?
>
> Why is it that top-posting moronic trolls have this fixation with
> donkeys?
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
> public.

Cat Protector
February 26th 04, 04:26 PM
What's the matter Bob? Disappointed that I am right and you are wrong. Every
time you post on here you put your foot in your mouth. So far you spoken out
against cat rescue, keeping cats indoors where they are safe, and of course
you have advised people it is ok to declaw their cats. No matter what proof
we have posted to you, you still don't hesitate to post like you are an
expert and that your position is right. Why can't you just admit that you
know absolutely nothing about cats?

--
Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek

Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
www.catgalaxymedia.com
"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:52:46 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> > wrote:
>
> >I see Bob is at it again. Now he is putting down cat rescue and posting
> >things that are not true. I wonder what other things he'll pull out of
his
> >ass?
>
> Why is it that top-posting moronic trolls have this fixation with
> donkeys?
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
> public.

Bob Brenchley.
February 27th 04, 06:29 PM
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:26:30 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>What's the matter Bob? Disappointed that I am right and you are wrong. Every
>time you post on here you put your foot in your mouth. So far you spoken out
>against cat rescue, keeping cats indoors where they are safe, and of course
>you have advised people it is ok to declaw their cats. No matter what proof
>we have posted to you, you still don't hesitate to post like you are an
>expert and that your position is right. Why can't you just admit that you
>know absolutely nothing about cats?
>
>--
>Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
>www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek
>
>Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
>www.catgalaxymedia.com
>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:52:46 -0700, "Cat Protector"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I see Bob is at it again. Now he is putting down cat rescue and posting
>> >things that are not true. I wonder what other things he'll pull out of
>his
>> >ass?
>>
>> Why is it that top-posting moronic trolls have this fixation with
>> donkeys?
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
>> I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
>> public.
>
Funny. Nothing down here to reply to?

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 27th 04, 06:29 PM
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:26:30 -0700, "Cat Protector"
> wrote:

>What's the matter Bob? Disappointed that I am right and you are wrong. Every
>time you post on here you put your foot in your mouth. So far you spoken out
>against cat rescue, keeping cats indoors where they are safe, and of course
>you have advised people it is ok to declaw their cats. No matter what proof
>we have posted to you, you still don't hesitate to post like you are an
>expert and that your position is right. Why can't you just admit that you
>know absolutely nothing about cats?
>
>--
>Panther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs!
>www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek
>
>Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time!
>www.catgalaxymedia.com
>"Bob Brenchley." > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:52:46 -0700, "Cat Protector"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I see Bob is at it again. Now he is putting down cat rescue and posting
>> >things that are not true. I wonder what other things he'll pull out of
>his
>> >ass?
>>
>> Why is it that top-posting moronic trolls have this fixation with
>> donkeys?
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
>> I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
>> public.
>
Funny. Nothing down here to reply to?

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 27th 04, 06:41 PM
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:40:24 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:01:33 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:01:05 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>>Please point me to the bit in that quote that says homing an indoor
>>>cat is an 'admission of failture'.
>>
>>Please point me at the bit in the quote where is says it isn't.
>
>*shakes head* Ok, if you can't conduct a simple conversation I'll
>adopt your posting style.
>
>You're a blathering old fool.

Your opinion, but as you have shown yourself to be an animal abuser it
is not an opinion I attach any value to.
>
>>>It's very odd, you and I seem to have interpreted that statement
>>>completely differently. I took the 'we do rehome indoor cats' to mean
>>>just that.
>>
>>Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
>
>As does yours. Blinkered.

I prefer to work with the facts. The really are simple.
>
>>> I never said they *only* rehome indoor cats, I never said
>>>they promote indoor cats, but they do rehome cats to indoor homes,
>>
>>Only the sick, disabled, very old or those cats that have been waiting
>>for homes for so long that indoor only is seen as the lesser of two
>>evils - in other words they have failed to find them a proper home.
>>
>>>particularly if it's safer in the circumstances. Curiously, I know of
>>>one situation recently - 2 littermates, 8 months old, very healthy and
>>>active, in the CP's fostercare. There was a choice between two homes -
>>>one with a garden, one in a flat. The CP went with the flat option.
>>
>>Pull the other one.
>
>It's absolutely true, I assure you. Believe what you want, but I'm the
>one with the facts and experience, all you have is a cut/paste
>standard reply and a bizarrely worrying approach to cat 'care'. I've
>repeatedly offered you evidence - not my evidence, but the experience
>of my local branch - and you continue to rubbish my comments. I can't
>argue with that,

Your experience as an animal abuser is worthless. I prefer to take the
word of people who actually work with organizations like Cats
Protection - at the hard end, raising money and finding homes for
cats. Their consistent evidence is that neither CP or many of the
small shelters that follow CP's guidelines, will normally rehome a
healthy cat to an indoor only environment.
>
>>>I really don't know why you're so obnoxious and defensive Mr
>>>Brenchley, I just don't get your motives.
>>>
>>To save cats from abusers like you.
>
>lol! ******.You really haven't a clue... I sincerely hope you don't
>have cats.

I currently have three here, though one will be going to her new home
this weekend.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 27th 04, 06:41 PM
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:40:24 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:01:33 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:01:05 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>>Please point me to the bit in that quote that says homing an indoor
>>>cat is an 'admission of failture'.
>>
>>Please point me at the bit in the quote where is says it isn't.
>
>*shakes head* Ok, if you can't conduct a simple conversation I'll
>adopt your posting style.
>
>You're a blathering old fool.

Your opinion, but as you have shown yourself to be an animal abuser it
is not an opinion I attach any value to.
>
>>>It's very odd, you and I seem to have interpreted that statement
>>>completely differently. I took the 'we do rehome indoor cats' to mean
>>>just that.
>>
>>Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
>
>As does yours. Blinkered.

I prefer to work with the facts. The really are simple.
>
>>> I never said they *only* rehome indoor cats, I never said
>>>they promote indoor cats, but they do rehome cats to indoor homes,
>>
>>Only the sick, disabled, very old or those cats that have been waiting
>>for homes for so long that indoor only is seen as the lesser of two
>>evils - in other words they have failed to find them a proper home.
>>
>>>particularly if it's safer in the circumstances. Curiously, I know of
>>>one situation recently - 2 littermates, 8 months old, very healthy and
>>>active, in the CP's fostercare. There was a choice between two homes -
>>>one with a garden, one in a flat. The CP went with the flat option.
>>
>>Pull the other one.
>
>It's absolutely true, I assure you. Believe what you want, but I'm the
>one with the facts and experience, all you have is a cut/paste
>standard reply and a bizarrely worrying approach to cat 'care'. I've
>repeatedly offered you evidence - not my evidence, but the experience
>of my local branch - and you continue to rubbish my comments. I can't
>argue with that,

Your experience as an animal abuser is worthless. I prefer to take the
word of people who actually work with organizations like Cats
Protection - at the hard end, raising money and finding homes for
cats. Their consistent evidence is that neither CP or many of the
small shelters that follow CP's guidelines, will normally rehome a
healthy cat to an indoor only environment.
>
>>>I really don't know why you're so obnoxious and defensive Mr
>>>Brenchley, I just don't get your motives.
>>>
>>To save cats from abusers like you.
>
>lol! ******.You really haven't a clue... I sincerely hope you don't
>have cats.

I currently have three here, though one will be going to her new home
this weekend.

--
Bob.

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

Jacqueline
February 27th 04, 08:52 PM
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:41:19 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:40:24 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>It's absolutely true, I assure you. Believe what you want, but I'm the
>>one with the facts and experience, all you have is a cut/paste
>>standard reply and a bizarrely worrying approach to cat 'care'. I've
>>repeatedly offered you evidence - not my evidence, but the experience
>>of my local branch - and you continue to rubbish my comments. I can't
>>argue with that,
>
>Your experience as an animal abuser is worthless. I prefer to take the
>word of people who actually work with organizations like Cats
>Protection - at the hard end, raising money and finding homes for
>cats.

I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
the bottom line.

*shrug*

Jacqueline
February 27th 04, 08:52 PM
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:41:19 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:40:24 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>It's absolutely true, I assure you. Believe what you want, but I'm the
>>one with the facts and experience, all you have is a cut/paste
>>standard reply and a bizarrely worrying approach to cat 'care'. I've
>>repeatedly offered you evidence - not my evidence, but the experience
>>of my local branch - and you continue to rubbish my comments. I can't
>>argue with that,
>
>Your experience as an animal abuser is worthless. I prefer to take the
>word of people who actually work with organizations like Cats
>Protection - at the hard end, raising money and finding homes for
>cats.

I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
the bottom line.

*shrug*

Bob Brenchley.
February 28th 04, 12:33 AM
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:52:28 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:41:19 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:40:24 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>>It's absolutely true, I assure you. Believe what you want, but I'm the
>>>one with the facts and experience, all you have is a cut/paste
>>>standard reply and a bizarrely worrying approach to cat 'care'. I've
>>>repeatedly offered you evidence - not my evidence, but the experience
>>>of my local branch - and you continue to rubbish my comments. I can't
>>>argue with that,
>>
>>Your experience as an animal abuser is worthless. I prefer to take the
>>word of people who actually work with organizations like Cats
>>Protection - at the hard end, raising money and finding homes for
>>cats.
>
>I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>the bottom line.
>
>*shrug*

As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.

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.

--
Bob.

Education would be your best defense, at the moment you are totally
defenseless.

Bob Brenchley.
February 28th 04, 12:33 AM
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:52:28 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:41:19 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:40:24 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>>It's absolutely true, I assure you. Believe what you want, but I'm the
>>>one with the facts and experience, all you have is a cut/paste
>>>standard reply and a bizarrely worrying approach to cat 'care'. I've
>>>repeatedly offered you evidence - not my evidence, but the experience
>>>of my local branch - and you continue to rubbish my comments. I can't
>>>argue with that,
>>
>>Your experience as an animal abuser is worthless. I prefer to take the
>>word of people who actually work with organizations like Cats
>>Protection - at the hard end, raising money and finding homes for
>>cats.
>
>I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>the bottom line.
>
>*shrug*

As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.

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.

--
Bob.

Education would be your best defense, at the moment you are totally
defenseless.

Jacqueline
February 28th 04, 11:40 AM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:33:40 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:52:28 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:>
>>I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>>them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>>and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>>the bottom line.
>>
>>*shrug*
>
>As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.

And as I already explained, I'm most categorically neither. I can't
comment on the RSPCA but I *can* comment on the CPL because I've had
plenty years' involvement with them. And your petty name-calling,
labelling people as 'abusers' is both misinformed and incredibly
offensive.

>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.

The fact is you talk out yer arse. Most people on this groups seem to
be American and you're upholding yourself as the spokesperson for the
UK. Well, for the benefit of our American posters, Bob's opinions are
only that - opinions. And very narrow-minded ones at that.

Jacqueline
February 28th 04, 11:40 AM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:33:40 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:52:28 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:>
>>I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>>them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>>and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>>the bottom line.
>>
>>*shrug*
>
>As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.

And as I already explained, I'm most categorically neither. I can't
comment on the RSPCA but I *can* comment on the CPL because I've had
plenty years' involvement with them. And your petty name-calling,
labelling people as 'abusers' is both misinformed and incredibly
offensive.

>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.

The fact is you talk out yer arse. Most people on this groups seem to
be American and you're upholding yourself as the spokesperson for the
UK. Well, for the benefit of our American posters, Bob's opinions are
only that - opinions. And very narrow-minded ones at that.

Bob Brenchley.
February 28th 04, 02:29 PM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:40:59 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:33:40 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:52:28 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:>
>>>I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>>>them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>>>and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>>>the bottom line.
>>>
>>>*shrug*
>>
>>As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.
>
>And as I already explained, I'm most categorically neither.

You are one or the other, there is no third option.

> I can't
>comment on the RSPCA but I *can* comment on the CPL because I've had
>plenty years' involvement with them. And your petty name-calling,
>labelling people as 'abusers' is both misinformed and incredibly
>offensive.

You can't comment on anything as your lies have already been exposed.
>
>>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.
>
>The fact is you talk out yer arse. Most people on this groups seem to
>be American and you're upholding yourself as the spokesperson for the
>UK. Well, for the benefit of our American posters, Bob's opinions are
>only that - opinions. And very narrow-minded ones at that.

And you are just a barefaced lying troll - the sort of animal abusing
scum that gets treated with contempt in the UK.

Now do shut up you stupid troll.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 28th 04, 02:29 PM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:40:59 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:33:40 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:52:28 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:>
>>>I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>>>them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>>>and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>>>the bottom line.
>>>
>>>*shrug*
>>
>>As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.
>
>And as I already explained, I'm most categorically neither.

You are one or the other, there is no third option.

> I can't
>comment on the RSPCA but I *can* comment on the CPL because I've had
>plenty years' involvement with them. And your petty name-calling,
>labelling people as 'abusers' is both misinformed and incredibly
>offensive.

You can't comment on anything as your lies have already been exposed.
>
>>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.
>
>The fact is you talk out yer arse. Most people on this groups seem to
>be American and you're upholding yourself as the spokesperson for the
>UK. Well, for the benefit of our American posters, Bob's opinions are
>only that - opinions. And very narrow-minded ones at that.

And you are just a barefaced lying troll - the sort of animal abusing
scum that gets treated with contempt in the UK.

Now do shut up you stupid troll.

--
Bob.

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

Jacqueline
February 28th 04, 03:19 PM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:29:54 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:40:59 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>
>>The fact is you talk out yer arse. Most people on this groups seem to
>>be American and you're upholding yourself as the spokesperson for the
>>UK. Well, for the benefit of our American posters, Bob's opinions are
>>only that - opinions. And very narrow-minded ones at that.
>
>And you are just a barefaced lying troll - the sort of animal abusing
>scum that gets treated with contempt in the UK.
>
>Now do shut up you stupid troll.

Ha! You calling *me* a troll?!?! Talk about pot and kettle. I've never
trolled any group in my life and I don't intend to start now. Idiot.

Jacqueline
February 28th 04, 03:19 PM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:29:54 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:40:59 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>
>>The fact is you talk out yer arse. Most people on this groups seem to
>>be American and you're upholding yourself as the spokesperson for the
>>UK. Well, for the benefit of our American posters, Bob's opinions are
>>only that - opinions. And very narrow-minded ones at that.
>
>And you are just a barefaced lying troll - the sort of animal abusing
>scum that gets treated with contempt in the UK.
>
>Now do shut up you stupid troll.

Ha! You calling *me* a troll?!?! Talk about pot and kettle. I've never
trolled any group in my life and I don't intend to start now. Idiot.

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
February 28th 04, 05:36 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
> >them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
> >and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
> >the bottom line.
> >
> >*shrug*
>
> As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.

You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence for
hers. You're required to offer some evidence that Jacqueline is lying
(no, offering evidence for your original claim won't do the trick, and
in any case you haven't accomplished that - all you've been doing is
practising argument by repeated assertion, which never works).

Incidentally, do you have a catflap? I sincerely hope so. Otherwise,
there will be points at which your cats desire to go outside or come
inside, and by your own argument, not to allow a cat free passage is an
act of cruelty. Cats are, obviously, freely-roaming creatures, and if
it's cruel to confine them, then it must be cruel to confine them even
temporarily...

....mustn't it...?

In fact, one could even argue that since cats are genetically identical
to at least one species of wildcat, and can freely interbreed with
them, then to attempt to keep them as pets in any way is an
interference with their natural life, and thereby an act of abuse.

But I doubt you are about to set yours free... are you, Bob? Would you
look for them if they didn't come home?

*sigh* I remember when you started posting here... you seemed so
amusing, so promising... What happened, Bob? What happened?
--
Gwenhwyfaer (shaking head sadly)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
February 28th 04, 05:36 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
> >them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
> >and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
> >the bottom line.
> >
> >*shrug*
>
> As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.

You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence for
hers. You're required to offer some evidence that Jacqueline is lying
(no, offering evidence for your original claim won't do the trick, and
in any case you haven't accomplished that - all you've been doing is
practising argument by repeated assertion, which never works).

Incidentally, do you have a catflap? I sincerely hope so. Otherwise,
there will be points at which your cats desire to go outside or come
inside, and by your own argument, not to allow a cat free passage is an
act of cruelty. Cats are, obviously, freely-roaming creatures, and if
it's cruel to confine them, then it must be cruel to confine them even
temporarily...

....mustn't it...?

In fact, one could even argue that since cats are genetically identical
to at least one species of wildcat, and can freely interbreed with
them, then to attempt to keep them as pets in any way is an
interference with their natural life, and thereby an act of abuse.

But I doubt you are about to set yours free... are you, Bob? Would you
look for them if they didn't come home?

*sigh* I remember when you started posting here... you seemed so
amusing, so promising... What happened, Bob? What happened?
--
Gwenhwyfaer (shaking head sadly)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
February 28th 04, 05:40 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> the sort of animal abusing
> scum that gets treated with contempt in the UK.

By whom, exactly?

f keeping indoor-only cats was an act of abuse, the RSPCA would seize
the cats and rehome them. Please provide precise documentary evidence
that this occurs. I _will_ be verifying any case you put forward.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (British, cat-slave, all cats currently outside)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
February 28th 04, 05:40 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> the sort of animal abusing
> scum that gets treated with contempt in the UK.

By whom, exactly?

f keeping indoor-only cats was an act of abuse, the RSPCA would seize
the cats and rehome them. Please provide precise documentary evidence
that this occurs. I _will_ be verifying any case you put forward.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (British, cat-slave, all cats currently outside)

some girls wander by themselves

Bob Brenchley.
February 28th 04, 07:25 PM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:19:10 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:29:54 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:40:59 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>
>>>The fact is you talk out yer arse. Most people on this groups seem to
>>>be American and you're upholding yourself as the spokesperson for the
>>>UK. Well, for the benefit of our American posters, Bob's opinions are
>>>only that - opinions. And very narrow-minded ones at that.
>>
>>And you are just a barefaced lying troll - the sort of animal abusing
>>scum that gets treated with contempt in the UK.
>>
>>Now do shut up you stupid troll.
>
>Ha! You calling *me* a troll?!?!

Or a liar, it has to be or the other.

> Talk about pot and kettle. I've never
>trolled any group in my life and I don't intend to start now. Idiot.

In that case you are owning up to being a liar. Fine, I can live with
that.

--
Bob.

Try not to let your mind wander...It is too small and fragile to be
out by itself.

Bob Brenchley.
February 28th 04, 07:25 PM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:19:10 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:29:54 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:40:59 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>
>>>The fact is you talk out yer arse. Most people on this groups seem to
>>>be American and you're upholding yourself as the spokesperson for the
>>>UK. Well, for the benefit of our American posters, Bob's opinions are
>>>only that - opinions. And very narrow-minded ones at that.
>>
>>And you are just a barefaced lying troll - the sort of animal abusing
>>scum that gets treated with contempt in the UK.
>>
>>Now do shut up you stupid troll.
>
>Ha! You calling *me* a troll?!?!

Or a liar, it has to be or the other.

> Talk about pot and kettle. I've never
>trolled any group in my life and I don't intend to start now. Idiot.

In that case you are owning up to being a liar. Fine, I can live with
that.

--
Bob.

Try not to let your mind wander...It is too small and fragile to be
out by itself.

Bob Brenchley.
February 29th 04, 10:14 AM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:09 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> the sort of animal abusing
>> scum that gets treated with contempt in the UK.
>
>By whom, exactly?

True animal lovers.

>
>f keeping indoor-only cats was an act of abuse, the RSPCA would seize
>the cats and rehome them. Please provide precise documentary evidence
>that this occurs. I _will_ be verifying any case you put forward.

Sadly the RSPCA are renowned for not taking the action they should in
a wide variety of animal abuse issues.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 29th 04, 10:14 AM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:09 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> the sort of animal abusing
>> scum that gets treated with contempt in the UK.
>
>By whom, exactly?

True animal lovers.

>
>f keeping indoor-only cats was an act of abuse, the RSPCA would seize
>the cats and rehome them. Please provide precise documentary evidence
>that this occurs. I _will_ be verifying any case you put forward.

Sadly the RSPCA are renowned for not taking the action they should in
a wide variety of animal abuse issues.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
February 29th 04, 10:46 AM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:36:04 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> >I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>> >them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>> >and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>> >the bottom line.
>> >
>> >*shrug*
>>
>> As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.
>
>You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence for
>hers. You're required to offer some evidence that Jacqueline is lying
>(no, offering evidence for your original claim won't do the trick, and
>in any case you haven't accomplished that - all you've been doing is
>practising argument by repeated assertion, which never works).

Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
or she is just trolling (another form of lying).

When you have worked with Cats Protection, and known as many other
people who worked with them as I have, you can see through her very
easily.
>
>Incidentally, do you have a catflap?

Yes, both in the house and in the office.

> I sincerely hope so. Otherwise,
>there will be points at which your cats desire to go outside or come
>inside, and by your own argument, not to allow a cat free passage is an
>act of cruelty. Cats are, obviously, freely-roaming creatures, and if
>it's cruel to confine them, then it must be cruel to confine them even
>temporarily...

THERE are times when it is necessary to confine them, mine are usually
in overnight, but that is as much for the safety of other animals as
their own.
>
>...mustn't it...?
>
>In fact, one could even argue that since cats are genetically identical
>to at least one species of wildcat, and can freely interbreed with
>them, then to attempt to keep them as pets in any way is an
>interference with their natural life, and thereby an act of abuse.

I don't approve of more of the misbred "pedigree" cats and most normal
cats elect to live with us.
>
>But I doubt you are about to set yours free... are you, Bob? Would you
>look for them if they didn't come home?

Of course I would look for them, but the point is that they are free
to go elsewhere if they wanted.
>
>*sigh* I remember when you started posting here... you seemed so
>amusing, so promising... What happened, Bob? What happened?

Several years of dealing with lying animal abusing trolls.

--
Bob.

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be
Light." And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

Bob Brenchley.
February 29th 04, 10:46 AM
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:36:04 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> >I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>> >them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>> >and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>> >the bottom line.
>> >
>> >*shrug*
>>
>> As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.
>
>You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence for
>hers. You're required to offer some evidence that Jacqueline is lying
>(no, offering evidence for your original claim won't do the trick, and
>in any case you haven't accomplished that - all you've been doing is
>practising argument by repeated assertion, which never works).

Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
or she is just trolling (another form of lying).

When you have worked with Cats Protection, and known as many other
people who worked with them as I have, you can see through her very
easily.
>
>Incidentally, do you have a catflap?

Yes, both in the house and in the office.

> I sincerely hope so. Otherwise,
>there will be points at which your cats desire to go outside or come
>inside, and by your own argument, not to allow a cat free passage is an
>act of cruelty. Cats are, obviously, freely-roaming creatures, and if
>it's cruel to confine them, then it must be cruel to confine them even
>temporarily...

THERE are times when it is necessary to confine them, mine are usually
in overnight, but that is as much for the safety of other animals as
their own.
>
>...mustn't it...?
>
>In fact, one could even argue that since cats are genetically identical
>to at least one species of wildcat, and can freely interbreed with
>them, then to attempt to keep them as pets in any way is an
>interference with their natural life, and thereby an act of abuse.

I don't approve of more of the misbred "pedigree" cats and most normal
cats elect to live with us.
>
>But I doubt you are about to set yours free... are you, Bob? Would you
>look for them if they didn't come home?

Of course I would look for them, but the point is that they are free
to go elsewhere if they wanted.
>
>*sigh* I remember when you started posting here... you seemed so
>amusing, so promising... What happened, Bob? What happened?

Several years of dealing with lying animal abusing trolls.

--
Bob.

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be
Light." And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

Jacqueline
February 29th 04, 11:44 AM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:46:00 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:36:04 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:
>
>>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>>> >I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>>> >them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>>> >and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>>> >the bottom line.
>>> >
>>> >*shrug*
>>>
>>> As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.
>>
>>You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence for
>>hers. You're required to offer some evidence that Jacqueline is lying
>>(no, offering evidence for your original claim won't do the trick, and
>>in any case you haven't accomplished that - all you've been doing is
>>practising argument by repeated assertion, which never works).
>
>Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
>Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
>Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
>them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
>reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
>or she is just trolling (another form of lying).

As I've said *REPEATEDLY* I can give you evidence - what evidence do
you need? I'll happily provide.

>When you have worked with Cats Protection, and known as many other
>people who worked with them as I have, you can see through her very
>easily.

I'd like to see your 'evidence' too. And not just the cut & paste
stock answer you've been purporting for the past x years either.

Jacqueline
February 29th 04, 11:44 AM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:46:00 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:36:04 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:
>
>>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>>> >I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>>> >them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>>> >and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>>> >the bottom line.
>>> >
>>> >*shrug*
>>>
>>> As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.
>>
>>You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence for
>>hers. You're required to offer some evidence that Jacqueline is lying
>>(no, offering evidence for your original claim won't do the trick, and
>>in any case you haven't accomplished that - all you've been doing is
>>practising argument by repeated assertion, which never works).
>
>Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
>Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
>Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
>them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
>reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
>or she is just trolling (another form of lying).

As I've said *REPEATEDLY* I can give you evidence - what evidence do
you need? I'll happily provide.

>When you have worked with Cats Protection, and known as many other
>people who worked with them as I have, you can see through her very
>easily.

I'd like to see your 'evidence' too. And not just the cut & paste
stock answer you've been purporting for the past x years either.

Bob Brenchley.
February 29th 04, 02:07 PM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:44:20 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:46:00 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:36:04 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:
>>
>>>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>>>> >I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>>>> >them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>>>> >and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>>>> >the bottom line.
>>>> >
>>>> >*shrug*
>>>>
>>>> As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.
>>>
>>>You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence for
>>>hers. You're required to offer some evidence that Jacqueline is lying
>>>(no, offering evidence for your original claim won't do the trick, and
>>>in any case you haven't accomplished that - all you've been doing is
>>>practising argument by repeated assertion, which never works).
>>
>>Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
>>Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
>>Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
>>them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
>>reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
>>or she is just trolling (another form of lying).
>
>As I've said *REPEATEDLY* I can give you evidence - what evidence do
>you need? I'll happily provide.

There is no evidence needed, you have proved by your words that you
are either a liar or a troll.
>
>>When you have worked with Cats Protection, and known as many other
>>people who worked with them as I have, you can see through her very
>>easily.
>
>I'd like to see your 'evidence' too. And not just the cut & paste
>stock answer you've been purporting for the past x years either.

The answer fits. There have been a few trolls who have tried to rip it
apart, but as it is based on facts they have never succeeded.

--
Bob.

I tell you what, you should be on educational TV, you certainly make
me feel so much smarter..?

Bob Brenchley.
February 29th 04, 02:07 PM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:44:20 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:46:00 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:36:04 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:
>>
>>>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>>>> >I prefer to take their word too. And from my years of experience with
>>>> >them (as a member, volunteer and adopter), I've learned that they can
>>>> >and do rehome healthy indoor only cats. Argue all you like but that's
>>>> >the bottom line.
>>>> >
>>>> >*shrug*
>>>>
>>>> As already explained. You are either a liar or a troll.
>>>
>>>You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence for
>>>hers. You're required to offer some evidence that Jacqueline is lying
>>>(no, offering evidence for your original claim won't do the trick, and
>>>in any case you haven't accomplished that - all you've been doing is
>>>practising argument by repeated assertion, which never works).
>>
>>Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
>>Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
>>Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
>>them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
>>reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
>>or she is just trolling (another form of lying).
>
>As I've said *REPEATEDLY* I can give you evidence - what evidence do
>you need? I'll happily provide.

There is no evidence needed, you have proved by your words that you
are either a liar or a troll.
>
>>When you have worked with Cats Protection, and known as many other
>>people who worked with them as I have, you can see through her very
>>easily.
>
>I'd like to see your 'evidence' too. And not just the cut & paste
>stock answer you've been purporting for the past x years either.

The answer fits. There have been a few trolls who have tried to rip it
apart, but as it is based on facts they have never succeeded.

--
Bob.

I tell you what, you should be on educational TV, you certainly make
me feel so much smarter..?

Jacqueline
February 29th 04, 02:08 PM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:07:19 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:44:20 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>As I've said *REPEATEDLY* I can give you evidence - what evidence do
>>you need? I'll happily provide.
>
>There is no evidence needed,

Thank you, that's all we needed to know :o)

>>I'd like to see your 'evidence' too. And not just the cut & paste
>>stock answer you've been purporting for the past x years either.
>
>The answer fits. There have been a few trolls who have tried to rip it
>apart, but as it is based on facts they have never succeeded.

Your facts are out of date.

Jacqueline
February 29th 04, 02:08 PM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:07:19 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:44:20 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>As I've said *REPEATEDLY* I can give you evidence - what evidence do
>>you need? I'll happily provide.
>
>There is no evidence needed,

Thank you, that's all we needed to know :o)

>>I'd like to see your 'evidence' too. And not just the cut & paste
>>stock answer you've been purporting for the past x years either.
>
>The answer fits. There have been a few trolls who have tried to rip it
>apart, but as it is based on facts they have never succeeded.

Your facts are out of date.

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
February 29th 04, 04:42 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> There is no evidence needed, you have proved by your words that you
> are either a liar or a troll.

There we are. A clear offer of evidence refused.

No, Bob, it doesn't work like that. When someone very clearly has a
quite different opinion and experience than you, it verges on the
sociopathic to just start calling them a liar. Saying "that's not my
experience" is perfectly acceptable, because it allows for the
difference - saying "you're a liar" without a full investigation only
demonstrates that you regard any experience differing from your own as
non-existent, which is quite divergent from what most people would
regard as normal, social behaviour. Unless you know, intimately, every
case handled by every office of every protection agency in the UK, and
are utterly sure that local offices don't diverge in practice (for
example, because local environments vary), you can't possibly know that
you're correct - which is what is required before you start screaming
"liar".
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
February 29th 04, 04:42 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> There is no evidence needed, you have proved by your words that you
> are either a liar or a troll.

There we are. A clear offer of evidence refused.

No, Bob, it doesn't work like that. When someone very clearly has a
quite different opinion and experience than you, it verges on the
sociopathic to just start calling them a liar. Saying "that's not my
experience" is perfectly acceptable, because it allows for the
difference - saying "you're a liar" without a full investigation only
demonstrates that you regard any experience differing from your own as
non-existent, which is quite divergent from what most people would
regard as normal, social behaviour. Unless you know, intimately, every
case handled by every office of every protection agency in the UK, and
are utterly sure that local offices don't diverge in practice (for
example, because local environments vary), you can't possibly know that
you're correct - which is what is required before you start screaming
"liar".
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
February 29th 04, 04:52 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence
> >for hers.
>
> Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.

You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your eyes
open at the time.

> Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
> Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
> them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
> reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
> or she is just trolling (another form of lying).

No we're not left with two alternatives; we're left with at least 5
other ones:

(a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.

(b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.

(c) your local office may differ from the norm in policy.

(d) the cats have been kept indoors all their life, they're about 5, and
whilst perfectly happy and healthy, they're timid.

(e) the cats consistently refused to leave the house, so she gave up
trying to persuade them.

You may be short of imagination, Bob, but don't try and project it onto
us as absolute truth. You're not in possession of that, and neither is
anyone else.

> >*sigh* I remember when you started posting here... you seemed so
> >amusing, so promising... What happened, Bob? What happened?
>
> Several years of dealing with lying animal abusing trolls.

....and as far as I can see, that constitutes the majority the newsgroup.
Ever wonder about that, Bob? Ever stop to think that just perhaps a
newsgroup does not find itself populated almost exclusively by lying
trolls - especially not lying trolls who seem perfectly capable of
getting on with everyone else in the newsgroup and not insisting that
their opinions are fact - until you, the vessel of ultimate revelation,
arrives to set it to rights? Ever considered that just perhaps it might
be you that's in the wrong?
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
February 29th 04, 04:52 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence
> >for hers.
>
> Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.

You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your eyes
open at the time.

> Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
> Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
> them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
> reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
> or she is just trolling (another form of lying).

No we're not left with two alternatives; we're left with at least 5
other ones:

(a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.

(b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.

(c) your local office may differ from the norm in policy.

(d) the cats have been kept indoors all their life, they're about 5, and
whilst perfectly happy and healthy, they're timid.

(e) the cats consistently refused to leave the house, so she gave up
trying to persuade them.

You may be short of imagination, Bob, but don't try and project it onto
us as absolute truth. You're not in possession of that, and neither is
anyone else.

> >*sigh* I remember when you started posting here... you seemed so
> >amusing, so promising... What happened, Bob? What happened?
>
> Several years of dealing with lying animal abusing trolls.

....and as far as I can see, that constitutes the majority the newsgroup.
Ever wonder about that, Bob? Ever stop to think that just perhaps a
newsgroup does not find itself populated almost exclusively by lying
trolls - especially not lying trolls who seem perfectly capable of
getting on with everyone else in the newsgroup and not insisting that
their opinions are fact - until you, the vessel of ultimate revelation,
arrives to set it to rights? Ever considered that just perhaps it might
be you that's in the wrong?
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
February 29th 04, 04:54 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >f keeping indoor-only cats was an act of abuse, the RSPCA would seize
> >the cats and rehome them. Please provide precise documentary evidence
> >that this occurs. I _will_ be verifying any case you put forward.
>
> Sadly the RSPCA are renowned for not taking the action they should in
> a wide variety of animal abuse issues.

Which is not so far from saying "I have no evidence to support my
position, I am simply spouting my opinion as if it were gospel, and I
also know better than the RSPCA what constitutes severe animal abuse".

Thanks for clarifying.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
February 29th 04, 04:54 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >f keeping indoor-only cats was an act of abuse, the RSPCA would seize
> >the cats and rehome them. Please provide precise documentary evidence
> >that this occurs. I _will_ be verifying any case you put forward.
>
> Sadly the RSPCA are renowned for not taking the action they should in
> a wide variety of animal abuse issues.

Which is not so far from saying "I have no evidence to support my
position, I am simply spouting my opinion as if it were gospel, and I
also know better than the RSPCA what constitutes severe animal abuse".

Thanks for clarifying.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Jennifer Snow
March 1st 04, 04:44 PM
I'm from California and the rescue groups here will not let you have one of
their cats if it is going to be allowed to be an indoor/outdoor cat (w/o
leash)


"Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil" > wrote in message
...
> Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> > >You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence
> > >for hers.
> >
> > Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
>
> You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
> claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your eyes
> open at the time.
>
> > Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
> > Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
> > them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
> > reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
> > or she is just trolling (another form of lying).
>
> No we're not left with two alternatives; we're left with at least 5
> other ones:
>
> (a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
> probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.
>
> (b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.
>
> (c) your local office may differ from the norm in policy.
>
> (d) the cats have been kept indoors all their life, they're about 5, and
> whilst perfectly happy and healthy, they're timid.
>
> (e) the cats consistently refused to leave the house, so she gave up
> trying to persuade them.
>
> You may be short of imagination, Bob, but don't try and project it onto
> us as absolute truth. You're not in possession of that, and neither is
> anyone else.
>
> > >*sigh* I remember when you started posting here... you seemed so
> > >amusing, so promising... What happened, Bob? What happened?
> >
> > Several years of dealing with lying animal abusing trolls.
>
> ...and as far as I can see, that constitutes the majority the newsgroup.
> Ever wonder about that, Bob? Ever stop to think that just perhaps a
> newsgroup does not find itself populated almost exclusively by lying
> trolls - especially not lying trolls who seem perfectly capable of
> getting on with everyone else in the newsgroup and not insisting that
> their opinions are fact - until you, the vessel of ultimate revelation,
> arrives to set it to rights? Ever considered that just perhaps it might
> be you that's in the wrong?
> --
> Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)
>
> some girls wander by themselves

Jennifer Snow
March 1st 04, 04:44 PM
I'm from California and the rescue groups here will not let you have one of
their cats if it is going to be allowed to be an indoor/outdoor cat (w/o
leash)


"Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil" > wrote in message
...
> Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> > >You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence
> > >for hers.
> >
> > Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
>
> You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
> claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your eyes
> open at the time.
>
> > Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
> > Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
> > them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
> > reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
> > or she is just trolling (another form of lying).
>
> No we're not left with two alternatives; we're left with at least 5
> other ones:
>
> (a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
> probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.
>
> (b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.
>
> (c) your local office may differ from the norm in policy.
>
> (d) the cats have been kept indoors all their life, they're about 5, and
> whilst perfectly happy and healthy, they're timid.
>
> (e) the cats consistently refused to leave the house, so she gave up
> trying to persuade them.
>
> You may be short of imagination, Bob, but don't try and project it onto
> us as absolute truth. You're not in possession of that, and neither is
> anyone else.
>
> > >*sigh* I remember when you started posting here... you seemed so
> > >amusing, so promising... What happened, Bob? What happened?
> >
> > Several years of dealing with lying animal abusing trolls.
>
> ...and as far as I can see, that constitutes the majority the newsgroup.
> Ever wonder about that, Bob? Ever stop to think that just perhaps a
> newsgroup does not find itself populated almost exclusively by lying
> trolls - especially not lying trolls who seem perfectly capable of
> getting on with everyone else in the newsgroup and not insisting that
> their opinions are fact - until you, the vessel of ultimate revelation,
> arrives to set it to rights? Ever considered that just perhaps it might
> be you that's in the wrong?
> --
> Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)
>
> some girls wander by themselves

Bob Brenchley.
March 1st 04, 07:41 PM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:08:23 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:07:19 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:44:20 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>>As I've said *REPEATEDLY* I can give you evidence - what evidence do
>>>you need? I'll happily provide.
>>
>>There is no evidence needed,
>
>Thank you, that's all we needed to know :o)
>
>>>I'd like to see your 'evidence' too. And not just the cut & paste
>>>stock answer you've been purporting for the past x years either.
>>
>>The answer fits. There have been a few trolls who have tried to rip it
>>apart, but as it is based on facts they have never succeeded.
>
>Your facts are out of date.

No, they are bang up to date.

Sorry troll, you lost.

--
Bob.

Education would be your best defense, at the moment you are totally
defenseless.

Bob Brenchley.
March 1st 04, 07:41 PM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:08:23 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:07:19 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:44:20 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>>As I've said *REPEATEDLY* I can give you evidence - what evidence do
>>>you need? I'll happily provide.
>>
>>There is no evidence needed,
>
>Thank you, that's all we needed to know :o)
>
>>>I'd like to see your 'evidence' too. And not just the cut & paste
>>>stock answer you've been purporting for the past x years either.
>>
>>The answer fits. There have been a few trolls who have tried to rip it
>>apart, but as it is based on facts they have never succeeded.
>
>Your facts are out of date.

No, they are bang up to date.

Sorry troll, you lost.

--
Bob.

Education would be your best defense, at the moment you are totally
defenseless.

Bob Brenchley.
March 1st 04, 07:46 PM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:42:09 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> There is no evidence needed, you have proved by your words that you
>> are either a liar or a troll.
>
>There we are. A clear offer of evidence refused.

There is no evidence needed, she has already proved herself a liar and
a troll.
>
>No, Bob, it doesn't work like that. When someone very clearly has a
>quite different opinion and experience than you, it verges on the
>sociopathic to just start calling them a liar.

When someone claims something you know to be untrue it is quite normal
to call them a liar.

>Saying "that's not my
>experience" is perfectly acceptable, because it allows for the
>difference - saying "you're a liar" without a full investigation only
>demonstrates that you regard any experience differing from your own as
>non-existent,

In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.

> which is quite divergent from what most people would
>regard as normal, social behaviour. Unless you know, intimately, every
>case handled by every office of every protection agency in the UK, and
>are utterly sure that local offices don't diverge in practice (for
>example, because local environments vary), you can't possibly know that
>you're correct - which is what is required before you start screaming
>"liar".

I can state, for the record, the fact that none of the UK's major
shelters (RSPCA, Cats Protection and 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.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 1st 04, 07:46 PM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:42:09 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> There is no evidence needed, you have proved by your words that you
>> are either a liar or a troll.
>
>There we are. A clear offer of evidence refused.

There is no evidence needed, she has already proved herself a liar and
a troll.
>
>No, Bob, it doesn't work like that. When someone very clearly has a
>quite different opinion and experience than you, it verges on the
>sociopathic to just start calling them a liar.

When someone claims something you know to be untrue it is quite normal
to call them a liar.

>Saying "that's not my
>experience" is perfectly acceptable, because it allows for the
>difference - saying "you're a liar" without a full investigation only
>demonstrates that you regard any experience differing from your own as
>non-existent,

In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.

> which is quite divergent from what most people would
>regard as normal, social behaviour. Unless you know, intimately, every
>case handled by every office of every protection agency in the UK, and
>are utterly sure that local offices don't diverge in practice (for
>example, because local environments vary), you can't possibly know that
>you're correct - which is what is required before you start screaming
>"liar".

I can state, for the record, the fact that none of the UK's major
shelters (RSPCA, Cats Protection and 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.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 1st 04, 07:51 PM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:52:22 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> >You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence
>> >for hers.
>>
>> Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
>
>You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
>claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your eyes
>open at the time.

There is no evidence to see.
>
>> Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
>> Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
>> them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
>> reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
>> or she is just trolling (another form of lying).
>
>No we're not left with two alternatives; we're left with at least 5
>other ones:
>
>(a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
>probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.

Irrelevant, it is still indoors.
>
>(b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.

No, policy is set higher up.
>
>(c) your local office may differ from the norm in policy.

See above.
>
>(d) the cats have been kept indoors all their life, they're about 5, and
>whilst perfectly happy and healthy, they're timid.

If they have been kept in all there lives they would go to someone
experience in handling such cases. Someone like me. It can take months
to build an older cat's confidence in the outside world, but the
results are so rewarding I'm happy to spend whatever time is needed.
>
>(e) the cats consistently refused to leave the house, so she gave up
>trying to persuade them.

That would be a sign of mental illness that needs treating. See above.
>
>You may be short of imagination, Bob, but don't try and project it onto
>us as absolute truth. You're not in possession of that, and neither is
>anyone else.

You have a very vivid imagination, but not one that fits very well
with the real world.
>
>> >*sigh* I remember when you started posting here... you seemed so
>> >amusing, so promising... What happened, Bob? What happened?
>>
>> Several years of dealing with lying animal abusing trolls.
>
>...and as far as I can see, that constitutes the majority the newsgroup.
>Ever wonder about that, Bob? Ever stop to think that just perhaps a
>newsgroup does not find itself populated almost exclusively by lying
>trolls - especially not lying trolls who seem perfectly capable of
>getting on with everyone else in the newsgroup and not insisting that
>their opinions are fact - until you, the vessel of ultimate revelation,
>arrives to set it to rights? Ever considered that just perhaps it might
>be you that's in the wrong?

You will find that there are a lot of other cat lovers out there, and
most of them will confirm all that I've said.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 1st 04, 07:51 PM
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:52:22 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> >You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence
>> >for hers.
>>
>> Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
>
>You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
>claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your eyes
>open at the time.

There is no evidence to see.
>
>> Given her stance, that she has had healthy cats placed in her care by
>> Cats Protection, with CP knowing in advance that she will be keeping
>> them indoors 24/7, we are left with only two alternatives that fit
>> reality. Either she is lying and the cats are not normal healthy cats,
>> or she is just trolling (another form of lying).
>
>No we're not left with two alternatives; we're left with at least 5
>other ones:
>
>(a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
>probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.

Irrelevant, it is still indoors.
>
>(b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.

No, policy is set higher up.
>
>(c) your local office may differ from the norm in policy.

See above.
>
>(d) the cats have been kept indoors all their life, they're about 5, and
>whilst perfectly happy and healthy, they're timid.

If they have been kept in all there lives they would go to someone
experience in handling such cases. Someone like me. It can take months
to build an older cat's confidence in the outside world, but the
results are so rewarding I'm happy to spend whatever time is needed.
>
>(e) the cats consistently refused to leave the house, so she gave up
>trying to persuade them.

That would be a sign of mental illness that needs treating. See above.
>
>You may be short of imagination, Bob, but don't try and project it onto
>us as absolute truth. You're not in possession of that, and neither is
>anyone else.

You have a very vivid imagination, but not one that fits very well
with the real world.
>
>> >*sigh* I remember when you started posting here... you seemed so
>> >amusing, so promising... What happened, Bob? What happened?
>>
>> Several years of dealing with lying animal abusing trolls.
>
>...and as far as I can see, that constitutes the majority the newsgroup.
>Ever wonder about that, Bob? Ever stop to think that just perhaps a
>newsgroup does not find itself populated almost exclusively by lying
>trolls - especially not lying trolls who seem perfectly capable of
>getting on with everyone else in the newsgroup and not insisting that
>their opinions are fact - until you, the vessel of ultimate revelation,
>arrives to set it to rights? Ever considered that just perhaps it might
>be you that's in the wrong?

You will find that there are a lot of other cat lovers out there, and
most of them will confirm all that I've said.

--
Bob.

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

Jacqueline
March 1st 04, 08:59 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:41:27 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:08:23 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>Your facts are out of date.
>
>No, they are bang up to date.
>
>Sorry troll, you lost.

Er, I don't think so matey.

Jacqueline
March 1st 04, 08:59 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:41:27 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:08:23 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>Your facts are out of date.
>
>No, they are bang up to date.
>
>Sorry troll, you lost.

Er, I don't think so matey.

Jacqueline
March 1st 04, 09:03 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:46:34 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:42:09 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:
>
>>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>>> There is no evidence needed, you have proved by your words that you
>>> are either a liar or a troll.
>>
>>There we are. A clear offer of evidence refused.
>
>There is no evidence needed, she has already proved herself a liar and
>a troll.

The only 'proof' is you insulting me, that's not proof, that's you
being an arse. One can only assume you're not a very educated man. I'd
like to have seen you at school/college/uni - 'no sir, I don't need to
produce evidence, I'm right and everybody else is wrong, and you're
all liars for contradicting me' !!

>>No, Bob, it doesn't work like that. When someone very clearly has a
>>quite different opinion and experience than you, it verges on the
>>sociopathic to just start calling them a liar.
>
>When someone claims something you know to be untrue it is quite normal
>to call them a liar.

But what I say is not untrue so your insult is misappropriate.

>>Saying "that's not my
>>experience" is perfectly acceptable, because it allows for the
>>difference - saying "you're a liar" without a full investigation only
>>demonstrates that you regard any experience differing from your own as
>>non-existent,
>
>In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
>hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.

*sigh* I'm not digging anything. For the millionth time, I can offer
you evidence of my experience - you choose to ignore it. That's not my
fault.

Jacqueline
March 1st 04, 09:03 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:46:34 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:42:09 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:
>
>>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>>> There is no evidence needed, you have proved by your words that you
>>> are either a liar or a troll.
>>
>>There we are. A clear offer of evidence refused.
>
>There is no evidence needed, she has already proved herself a liar and
>a troll.

The only 'proof' is you insulting me, that's not proof, that's you
being an arse. One can only assume you're not a very educated man. I'd
like to have seen you at school/college/uni - 'no sir, I don't need to
produce evidence, I'm right and everybody else is wrong, and you're
all liars for contradicting me' !!

>>No, Bob, it doesn't work like that. When someone very clearly has a
>>quite different opinion and experience than you, it verges on the
>>sociopathic to just start calling them a liar.
>
>When someone claims something you know to be untrue it is quite normal
>to call them a liar.

But what I say is not untrue so your insult is misappropriate.

>>Saying "that's not my
>>experience" is perfectly acceptable, because it allows for the
>>difference - saying "you're a liar" without a full investigation only
>>demonstrates that you regard any experience differing from your own as
>>non-existent,
>
>In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
>hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.

*sigh* I'm not digging anything. For the millionth time, I can offer
you evidence of my experience - you choose to ignore it. That's not my
fault.

Bob Brenchley.
March 1st 04, 09:16 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:03:45 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>>In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
>>hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.
>
>*sigh* I'm not digging anything. For the millionth time, I can offer
>you evidence of my experience - you choose to ignore it. That's not my
>fault.
>
I ignore it because I trust my own experience, and those of EVERY
single person I've come across who has ever worked with cats in the
UK, over a lying troll like you on usenet.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 1st 04, 09:16 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:03:45 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>>In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
>>hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.
>
>*sigh* I'm not digging anything. For the millionth time, I can offer
>you evidence of my experience - you choose to ignore it. That's not my
>fault.
>
I ignore it because I trust my own experience, and those of EVERY
single person I've come across who has ever worked with cats in the
UK, over a lying troll like you on usenet.

--
Bob.

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

Jacqueline
March 1st 04, 10:15 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:51:58 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:52:22 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:
>
>>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>>> >You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence
>>> >for hers.
>>>
>>> Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
>>
>>You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
>>claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your eyes
>>open at the time.
>
>There is no evidence to see.

lol! Yeah, ok.

>>(a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
>>probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.
>
>Irrelevant, it is still indoors.
>
>>(b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.
>
>No, policy is set higher up.

Go tell that to my local branch then.

>>(d) the cats have been kept indoors all their life, they're about 5, and
>>whilst perfectly happy and healthy, they're timid.
>
>If they have been kept in all there lives they would go to someone
>experience in handling such cases. Someone like me. It can take months
>to build an older cat's confidence in the outside world, but the
>results are so rewarding I'm happy to spend whatever time is needed.

Gosh, it almost sounded like you actually cared about animals there.
Then again, judging by your other posts, I suspect you're making that
lot up to make it seem like you know what you're talking about.

Jacqueline
March 1st 04, 10:15 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:51:58 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:52:22 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:
>
>>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>>> >You're making that claim - prove it. Jacqueline has offered evidence
>>> >for hers.
>>>
>>> Strange, I've seen no evidence which carries any weight from her.
>>
>>You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
>>claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your eyes
>>open at the time.
>
>There is no evidence to see.

lol! Yeah, ok.

>>(a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
>>probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.
>
>Irrelevant, it is still indoors.
>
>>(b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.
>
>No, policy is set higher up.

Go tell that to my local branch then.

>>(d) the cats have been kept indoors all their life, they're about 5, and
>>whilst perfectly happy and healthy, they're timid.
>
>If they have been kept in all there lives they would go to someone
>experience in handling such cases. Someone like me. It can take months
>to build an older cat's confidence in the outside world, but the
>results are so rewarding I'm happy to spend whatever time is needed.

Gosh, it almost sounded like you actually cared about animals there.
Then again, judging by your other posts, I suspect you're making that
lot up to make it seem like you know what you're talking about.

Jacqueline
March 1st 04, 10:24 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:16:03 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:03:45 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>
>>>In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
>>>hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.
>>
>>*sigh* I'm not digging anything. For the millionth time, I can offer
>>you evidence of my experience - you choose to ignore it. That's not my
>>fault.
>>
>I ignore it because I trust my own experience, and those of EVERY
>single person I've come across who has ever worked with cats in the
>UK,

Then you're only seeing what you want to see. I've owned cats, I've
worked with cats, I've had umpteen years of experience with a
particular branch of a national UK charity - and my experience differs
from yours. If you weren't so closed-minded you might actually learn
something. Instead of insulting me you could actually try and have a
conversation and learn something about my experiences. But no, you'd
rather dismiss something you disagree with out of hand and that's
that. You know nothing about me or my work, yet you take it upon
yourself to make assumptions and cast aspersions on the validity of my
argument. Sorry, but it's obvious who's the: "lying troll like you on
usenet."

Jacqueline
March 1st 04, 10:24 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:16:03 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:03:45 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>
>>>In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
>>>hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.
>>
>>*sigh* I'm not digging anything. For the millionth time, I can offer
>>you evidence of my experience - you choose to ignore it. That's not my
>>fault.
>>
>I ignore it because I trust my own experience, and those of EVERY
>single person I've come across who has ever worked with cats in the
>UK,

Then you're only seeing what you want to see. I've owned cats, I've
worked with cats, I've had umpteen years of experience with a
particular branch of a national UK charity - and my experience differs
from yours. If you weren't so closed-minded you might actually learn
something. Instead of insulting me you could actually try and have a
conversation and learn something about my experiences. But no, you'd
rather dismiss something you disagree with out of hand and that's
that. You know nothing about me or my work, yet you take it upon
yourself to make assumptions and cast aspersions on the validity of my
argument. Sorry, but it's obvious who's the: "lying troll like you on
usenet."

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 1st 04, 10:37 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >There we are. A clear offer of evidence refused.
>
> There is no evidence needed, she has already proved herself a liar and
> a troll.

No she hasn't. Giving you an impression is not the same thing as
proving.

> >No, Bob, it doesn't work like that. When someone very clearly has a
> >quite different opinion and experience than you, it verges on the
> >sociopathic to just start calling them a liar.
>
> When someone claims something you know to be untrue it is quite normal
> to call them a liar.

When they offer evidence to back up their position it's quite normal to
retreat from such a dogmatic position and consider that evidence.

> >Saying "that's not my
> >experience" is perfectly acceptable, because it allows for the
> >difference - saying "you're a liar" without a full investigation only
> >demonstrates that you regard any experience differing from your own
> >as non-existent,
>
> In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
> hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.

No she wasn't - you refused her every offer to back up her statements.

> I can state, for the record, the fact that none of the UK's major
> shelters (RSPCA, Cats Protection and 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.

Put yourself in my shoes. I see person A shouting the same thing over
and over, whilst refusing to offer evidence for his assertions, or
consider evidence anyone else may put forward for theirs. I see
person B reasonably pointing out that her experience is different and
making an offer of evidence to back up her assertions. I don't know
either person, so I have no evidence as to either person's general
trustworthiness.

Confronted with that situation, who would you be more likely to take
seriously? Why?
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 1st 04, 10:37 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >There we are. A clear offer of evidence refused.
>
> There is no evidence needed, she has already proved herself a liar and
> a troll.

No she hasn't. Giving you an impression is not the same thing as
proving.

> >No, Bob, it doesn't work like that. When someone very clearly has a
> >quite different opinion and experience than you, it verges on the
> >sociopathic to just start calling them a liar.
>
> When someone claims something you know to be untrue it is quite normal
> to call them a liar.

When they offer evidence to back up their position it's quite normal to
retreat from such a dogmatic position and consider that evidence.

> >Saying "that's not my
> >experience" is perfectly acceptable, because it allows for the
> >difference - saying "you're a liar" without a full investigation only
> >demonstrates that you regard any experience differing from your own
> >as non-existent,
>
> In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
> hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.

No she wasn't - you refused her every offer to back up her statements.

> I can state, for the record, the fact that none of the UK's major
> shelters (RSPCA, Cats Protection and 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.

Put yourself in my shoes. I see person A shouting the same thing over
and over, whilst refusing to offer evidence for his assertions, or
consider evidence anyone else may put forward for theirs. I see
person B reasonably pointing out that her experience is different and
making an offer of evidence to back up her assertions. I don't know
either person, so I have no evidence as to either person's general
trustworthiness.

Confronted with that situation, who would you be more likely to take
seriously? Why?
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 1st 04, 10:38 PM
Quoth Jacqueline:
> The only 'proof' is you insulting me, that's not proof, that's you
> being an arse. One can only assume you're not a very educated man. I'd
> like to have seen you at school/college/uni - 'no sir, I don't need to
> produce evidence, I'm right and everybody else is wrong, and you're
> all liars for contradicting me' !!

Some eminent professors have built careers on such arguments. :)
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 1st 04, 10:38 PM
Quoth Jacqueline:
> The only 'proof' is you insulting me, that's not proof, that's you
> being an arse. One can only assume you're not a very educated man. I'd
> like to have seen you at school/college/uni - 'no sir, I don't need to
> produce evidence, I'm right and everybody else is wrong, and you're
> all liars for contradicting me' !!

Some eminent professors have built careers on such arguments. :)
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Bob Brenchley.
March 1st 04, 10:38 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:24:50 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:16:03 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:03:45 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>
>>>>In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
>>>>hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.
>>>
>>>*sigh* I'm not digging anything. For the millionth time, I can offer
>>>you evidence of my experience - you choose to ignore it. That's not my
>>>fault.
>>>
>>I ignore it because I trust my own experience, and those of EVERY
>>single person I've come across who has ever worked with cats in the
>>UK,
>
>Then you're only seeing what you want to see. I've owned cats, I've
>worked with cats, I've had umpteen years of experience with a
>particular branch of a national UK charity - and my experience differs
>from yours.

No, but your lying and trolling does.

> If you weren't so closed-minded you might actually learn
>something. Instead of insulting me you could actually try and have a
>conversation and learn something about my experiences.

I'm not interested in the experiences of a liar and troll.

> But no, you'd
>rather dismiss something you disagree with out of hand and that's
>that.

When you are so far wide of reality you get dismissed.

>You know nothing about me or my work, yet you take it upon
>yourself to make assumptions and cast aspersions on the validity of my
>argument. Sorry, but it's obvious who's the: "lying troll like you on
>usenet."

Please feel free to come back when you are prepared to tell the truth.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 1st 04, 10:38 PM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:24:50 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:16:03 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:03:45 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:
>>
>>>>In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
>>>>hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.
>>>
>>>*sigh* I'm not digging anything. For the millionth time, I can offer
>>>you evidence of my experience - you choose to ignore it. That's not my
>>>fault.
>>>
>>I ignore it because I trust my own experience, and those of EVERY
>>single person I've come across who has ever worked with cats in the
>>UK,
>
>Then you're only seeing what you want to see. I've owned cats, I've
>worked with cats, I've had umpteen years of experience with a
>particular branch of a national UK charity - and my experience differs
>from yours.

No, but your lying and trolling does.

> If you weren't so closed-minded you might actually learn
>something. Instead of insulting me you could actually try and have a
>conversation and learn something about my experiences.

I'm not interested in the experiences of a liar and troll.

> But no, you'd
>rather dismiss something you disagree with out of hand and that's
>that.

When you are so far wide of reality you get dismissed.

>You know nothing about me or my work, yet you take it upon
>yourself to make assumptions and cast aspersions on the validity of my
>argument. Sorry, but it's obvious who's the: "lying troll like you on
>usenet."

Please feel free to come back when you are prepared to tell the truth.

--
Bob.

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

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 1st 04, 11:00 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
> >claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your
> >eyes open at the time.
>
> There is no evidence to see.

She says there is, and she's happy to produce it.

> >(a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
> >probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.
>
> Irrelevant, it is still indoors.

Not irrelevant at all. The issue for cats is space and interest - cats
need territory of a certain size, for prowling in, and need enough of
interest going on in this territory. The territory varies from cat
to cat; for a spayed male it tends to be quite small. They also need a
degree of security in it, and enough going on in it to capture their
interest. Indoors or outdoors is a quite artificial distinction, once
the space requirement is satisfied.

> >(b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.
>
> No, policy is set higher up.

Policies set higher up are usually flexible on the ground. This applies
to all organisations; I can't see why the CPL would be any different.

> If they have been kept in all there lives they would go to someone
> experience in handling such cases. Someone like me. It can take months
> to build an older cat's confidence in the outside world, but the
> results are so rewarding I'm happy to spend whatever time is needed.

I'm sorry, Bob, but from the evidence you have put forward and the
personality traits you have exhibited on this newsgroup, I doubt you're
either flexible or sympathetic enough to be capable of doing what you
claim here.

And then I read the next clause...

> >(e) the cats consistently refused to leave the house, so she gave up
> >trying to persuade them.
>
> That would be a sign of mental illness that needs treating. See above.

Bob, you do realise that you've just said that there's something wrong
with a cat that won't do what you think cats should do, don't you?
Attempting to impose your dogma on what a cat should do on a newsgroup
is one thing. Attempting to impose it on a cat is something else. I'm
familiar with psychological abuse from my own life - and your attitude
to cats, as stated above, is psychologically abusive.

> >You may be short of imagination, Bob, but don't try and project it
> >onto us as absolute truth. You're not in possession of that, and
> >neither is anyone else.
>
> You have a very vivid imagination, but not one that fits very well
> with the real world.

Rich, coming from someone who doesn't permit the existence of an
experience different from his own.

> >...and as far as I can see, that constitutes the majority the
> >newsgroup. Ever wonder about that, Bob? Ever stop to think that just
> >perhaps a newsgroup does not find itself populated almost exclusively
> >by lying trolls - especially not lying trolls who seem perfectly
> >capable of getting on with everyone else in the newsgroup and not
> >insisting that their opinions are fact - until you, the vessel of
> >ultimate revelation, arrives to set it to rights? Ever considered
> >that just perhaps it might be you that's in the wrong?
>
> You will find that there are a lot of other cat lovers out there, and
> most of them will confirm all that I've said.

I have known a lot of other cat lovers. All of them are devoted to their
felines. None of them would ever abuse an animal, or tolerate such
abuse. The majority of them let their cats out; a couple don't.

[.sig quote]
> I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
> public.

*sigh* Is there any signature in your collection that is not
crafted to convey your utter belief in your own intellectual superiority
to just about everyone else you ever come into contact with?

If you must disagree with people, fine, do so. People are different.
But stop being so damned RUDE about it.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 1st 04, 11:00 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
> >claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your
> >eyes open at the time.
>
> There is no evidence to see.

She says there is, and she's happy to produce it.

> >(a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
> >probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.
>
> Irrelevant, it is still indoors.

Not irrelevant at all. The issue for cats is space and interest - cats
need territory of a certain size, for prowling in, and need enough of
interest going on in this territory. The territory varies from cat
to cat; for a spayed male it tends to be quite small. They also need a
degree of security in it, and enough going on in it to capture their
interest. Indoors or outdoors is a quite artificial distinction, once
the space requirement is satisfied.

> >(b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.
>
> No, policy is set higher up.

Policies set higher up are usually flexible on the ground. This applies
to all organisations; I can't see why the CPL would be any different.

> If they have been kept in all there lives they would go to someone
> experience in handling such cases. Someone like me. It can take months
> to build an older cat's confidence in the outside world, but the
> results are so rewarding I'm happy to spend whatever time is needed.

I'm sorry, Bob, but from the evidence you have put forward and the
personality traits you have exhibited on this newsgroup, I doubt you're
either flexible or sympathetic enough to be capable of doing what you
claim here.

And then I read the next clause...

> >(e) the cats consistently refused to leave the house, so she gave up
> >trying to persuade them.
>
> That would be a sign of mental illness that needs treating. See above.

Bob, you do realise that you've just said that there's something wrong
with a cat that won't do what you think cats should do, don't you?
Attempting to impose your dogma on what a cat should do on a newsgroup
is one thing. Attempting to impose it on a cat is something else. I'm
familiar with psychological abuse from my own life - and your attitude
to cats, as stated above, is psychologically abusive.

> >You may be short of imagination, Bob, but don't try and project it
> >onto us as absolute truth. You're not in possession of that, and
> >neither is anyone else.
>
> You have a very vivid imagination, but not one that fits very well
> with the real world.

Rich, coming from someone who doesn't permit the existence of an
experience different from his own.

> >...and as far as I can see, that constitutes the majority the
> >newsgroup. Ever wonder about that, Bob? Ever stop to think that just
> >perhaps a newsgroup does not find itself populated almost exclusively
> >by lying trolls - especially not lying trolls who seem perfectly
> >capable of getting on with everyone else in the newsgroup and not
> >insisting that their opinions are fact - until you, the vessel of
> >ultimate revelation, arrives to set it to rights? Ever considered
> >that just perhaps it might be you that's in the wrong?
>
> You will find that there are a lot of other cat lovers out there, and
> most of them will confirm all that I've said.

I have known a lot of other cat lovers. All of them are devoted to their
felines. None of them would ever abuse an animal, or tolerate such
abuse. The majority of them let their cats out; a couple don't.

[.sig quote]
> I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
> public.

*sigh* Is there any signature in your collection that is not
crafted to convey your utter belief in your own intellectual superiority
to just about everyone else you ever come into contact with?

If you must disagree with people, fine, do so. People are different.
But stop being so damned RUDE about it.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Jacqueline
March 2nd 04, 12:08 AM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:38:40 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>> If you weren't so closed-minded you might actually learn
>>something. Instead of insulting me you could actually try and have a
>>conversation and learn something about my experiences.
>
>I'm not interested in the experiences of a liar and troll.

But I am neither so my opinion and experiences are valid.

>> But no, you'd
>>rather dismiss something you disagree with out of hand and that's
>>that.
>
>When you are so far wide of reality you get dismissed.

Well, so it seems in your case, nobody's taking you seriously.

>>You know nothing about me or my work, yet you take it upon
>>yourself to make assumptions and cast aspersions on the validity of my
>>argument. Sorry, but it's obvious who's the: "lying troll like you on
>>usenet."
>
>Please feel free to come back when you are prepared to tell the truth.

What you mean is, "please feel free to come back when you agree with
everything I say". You really are bizarre.

Jacqueline
March 2nd 04, 12:08 AM
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:38:40 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>> If you weren't so closed-minded you might actually learn
>>something. Instead of insulting me you could actually try and have a
>>conversation and learn something about my experiences.
>
>I'm not interested in the experiences of a liar and troll.

But I am neither so my opinion and experiences are valid.

>> But no, you'd
>>rather dismiss something you disagree with out of hand and that's
>>that.
>
>When you are so far wide of reality you get dismissed.

Well, so it seems in your case, nobody's taking you seriously.

>>You know nothing about me or my work, yet you take it upon
>>yourself to make assumptions and cast aspersions on the validity of my
>>argument. Sorry, but it's obvious who's the: "lying troll like you on
>>usenet."
>
>Please feel free to come back when you are prepared to tell the truth.

What you mean is, "please feel free to come back when you agree with
everything I say". You really are bizarre.

Bob Brenchley.
March 2nd 04, 02:36 PM
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:08:21 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:38:40 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>> If you weren't so closed-minded you might actually learn
>>>something. Instead of insulting me you could actually try and have a
>>>conversation and learn something about my experiences.
>>
>>I'm not interested in the experiences of a liar and troll.
>
>But I am neither so my opinion and experiences are valid.

You are one or the other, or possibly both.
>
>>> But no, you'd
>>>rather dismiss something you disagree with out of hand and that's
>>>that.
>>
>>When you are so far wide of reality you get dismissed.
>
>Well, so it seems in your case, nobody's taking you seriously.
>
>>>You know nothing about me or my work, yet you take it upon
>>>yourself to make assumptions and cast aspersions on the validity of my
>>>argument. Sorry, but it's obvious who's the: "lying troll like you on
>>>usenet."
>>
>>Please feel free to come back when you are prepared to tell the truth.
>
>What you mean is, "please feel free to come back when you agree with
>everything I say". You really are bizarre.

Feel free to come back when you stop lying about the work of a much
respected organization like Cats Protection.

--
Bob.

I guess you just get lost in thought sometimes. It being such
unfamiliar territory to you.

Bob Brenchley.
March 2nd 04, 02:36 PM
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:08:21 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:38:40 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>> If you weren't so closed-minded you might actually learn
>>>something. Instead of insulting me you could actually try and have a
>>>conversation and learn something about my experiences.
>>
>>I'm not interested in the experiences of a liar and troll.
>
>But I am neither so my opinion and experiences are valid.

You are one or the other, or possibly both.
>
>>> But no, you'd
>>>rather dismiss something you disagree with out of hand and that's
>>>that.
>>
>>When you are so far wide of reality you get dismissed.
>
>Well, so it seems in your case, nobody's taking you seriously.
>
>>>You know nothing about me or my work, yet you take it upon
>>>yourself to make assumptions and cast aspersions on the validity of my
>>>argument. Sorry, but it's obvious who's the: "lying troll like you on
>>>usenet."
>>
>>Please feel free to come back when you are prepared to tell the truth.
>
>What you mean is, "please feel free to come back when you agree with
>everything I say". You really are bizarre.

Feel free to come back when you stop lying about the work of a much
respected organization like Cats Protection.

--
Bob.

I guess you just get lost in thought sometimes. It being such
unfamiliar territory to you.

Bob Brenchley.
March 2nd 04, 02:55 PM
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:37:18 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> >There we are. A clear offer of evidence refused.
>>
>> There is no evidence needed, she has already proved herself a liar and
>> a troll.
>
>No she hasn't. Giving you an impression is not the same thing as
>proving.

In your opinion.
>
>> >No, Bob, it doesn't work like that. When someone very clearly has a
>> >quite different opinion and experience than you, it verges on the
>> >sociopathic to just start calling them a liar.
>>
>> When someone claims something you know to be untrue it is quite normal
>> to call them a liar.
>
>When they offer evidence to back up their position it's quite normal to
>retreat from such a dogmatic position and consider that evidence.

Sorry, but when you know the facts as well as I do then there is no
retreat needed.
>
>> >Saying "that's not my
>> >experience" is perfectly acceptable, because it allows for the
>> >difference - saying "you're a liar" without a full investigation only
>> >demonstrates that you regard any experience differing from your own
>> >as non-existent,
>>
>> In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
>> hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.
>
>No she wasn't - you refused her every offer to back up her statements.

She was given ample opportunity to back out of the hole she was
digging, she insisted on keeping up the digging rather than take any
of the outs that were offered.
>
>> I can state, for the record, the fact that none of the UK's major
>> shelters (RSPCA, Cats Protection and 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.
>
>Put yourself in my shoes. I see person A shouting the same thing over
>and over, whilst refusing to offer evidence for his assertions, or
>consider evidence anyone else may put forward for theirs. I see
>person B reasonably pointing out that her experience is different and
>making an offer of evidence to back up her assertions. I don't know
>either person, so I have no evidence as to either person's general
>trustworthiness.

I see person A stating the facts, facts that have been backed up by
those that work at the hard end of cat care in the UK.

I see person B starting to troll, being called out, and being unable
to produce evidence because no such evidence can exist. She is welcome
to spout her "experiences" but I know in advance there is little
chance she will start telling the truth as she is now too deep in that
hole of hers.
>
>Confronted with that situation, who would you be more likely to take
>seriously? Why?

Frankly, I always go for the facts.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 2nd 04, 02:55 PM
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:37:18 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> >There we are. A clear offer of evidence refused.
>>
>> There is no evidence needed, she has already proved herself a liar and
>> a troll.
>
>No she hasn't. Giving you an impression is not the same thing as
>proving.

In your opinion.
>
>> >No, Bob, it doesn't work like that. When someone very clearly has a
>> >quite different opinion and experience than you, it verges on the
>> >sociopathic to just start calling them a liar.
>>
>> When someone claims something you know to be untrue it is quite normal
>> to call them a liar.
>
>When they offer evidence to back up their position it's quite normal to
>retreat from such a dogmatic position and consider that evidence.

Sorry, but when you know the facts as well as I do then there is no
retreat needed.
>
>> >Saying "that's not my
>> >experience" is perfectly acceptable, because it allows for the
>> >difference - saying "you're a liar" without a full investigation only
>> >demonstrates that you regard any experience differing from your own
>> >as non-existent,
>>
>> In this case it is. She was given ample opportunity to back out of the
>> hole she was digging, but eventually you just have to fill it in.
>
>No she wasn't - you refused her every offer to back up her statements.

She was given ample opportunity to back out of the hole she was
digging, she insisted on keeping up the digging rather than take any
of the outs that were offered.
>
>> I can state, for the record, the fact that none of the UK's major
>> shelters (RSPCA, Cats Protection and 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.
>
>Put yourself in my shoes. I see person A shouting the same thing over
>and over, whilst refusing to offer evidence for his assertions, or
>consider evidence anyone else may put forward for theirs. I see
>person B reasonably pointing out that her experience is different and
>making an offer of evidence to back up her assertions. I don't know
>either person, so I have no evidence as to either person's general
>trustworthiness.

I see person A stating the facts, facts that have been backed up by
those that work at the hard end of cat care in the UK.

I see person B starting to troll, being called out, and being unable
to produce evidence because no such evidence can exist. She is welcome
to spout her "experiences" but I know in advance there is little
chance she will start telling the truth as she is now too deep in that
hole of hers.
>
>Confronted with that situation, who would you be more likely to take
>seriously? Why?

Frankly, I always go for the facts.

--
Bob.

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

Jacqueline
March 2nd 04, 03:15 PM
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:55:41 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>I see person B starting to troll, being called out, and being unable
>to produce evidence because no such evidence can exist. She is welcome
>to spout her "experiences" but I know in advance there is little
>chance she will start telling the truth as she is now too deep in that
>hole of hers.

The evidence does exist, you just don't want to look, listen or
understand. Nothing I have said has been a 'lie', I can back my
statements. I don't have the time or inclination to go around making
up things for the fun of it. I came here for intelligent conversation
about my number one love - cats. Instead this place seems to be
dominated by you and your pointless uninformed nonense and inability
to hold a two-way conversation.

>>Confronted with that situation, who would you be more likely to take
>>seriously? Why?
>
>Frankly, I always go for the facts.

Me too.

Jacqueline
March 2nd 04, 03:15 PM
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:55:41 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>I see person B starting to troll, being called out, and being unable
>to produce evidence because no such evidence can exist. She is welcome
>to spout her "experiences" but I know in advance there is little
>chance she will start telling the truth as she is now too deep in that
>hole of hers.

The evidence does exist, you just don't want to look, listen or
understand. Nothing I have said has been a 'lie', I can back my
statements. I don't have the time or inclination to go around making
up things for the fun of it. I came here for intelligent conversation
about my number one love - cats. Instead this place seems to be
dominated by you and your pointless uninformed nonense and inability
to hold a two-way conversation.

>>Confronted with that situation, who would you be more likely to take
>>seriously? Why?
>
>Frankly, I always go for the facts.

Me too.

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 2nd 04, 10:29 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >Giving you an impression is not the same thing as proving.
>
> In your opinion.

No, period.

> >When they offer evidence to back up their position it's quite normal
> >to retreat from such a dogmatic position and consider that evidence.
>
> Sorry, but when you know the facts as well as I do then there is no
> retreat needed.

You're claiming absolute knowledge. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof, proof that permits of no contradiction. You haven't
provided this - you've simply repeated your assertion over and over.

> >No she wasn't - you refused her every offer to back up her
> >statements.
>
> She was given ample opportunity to back out of the hole she was
> digging, she insisted on keeping up the digging rather than take any
> of the outs that were offered.

What _are_ you blathering on about? What hole? What digging?

You made a statement.

She refuted it, citing her experience as counter-example.

You repeated your assertion, and called her integrity into question,
without offering any evidence.

She offered evidence to back her counter-example.

You once more repeated your assertion, repeated your questioning of her
integrity, again without question, and refused to even consider her
evidence.

She, being a rational human being, gave up at this point, and made an
uncharitable (although broadly accurate) assertion about your
self-opinion.

In all of this, it's you that's coming off as the jerk.

I don't believe you - I believe her. Sadly, you are more responsible for
this than she is.

> >Put yourself in my shoes. I see person A shouting the same thing over
> >and over, whilst refusing to offer evidence for his assertions, or
> >consider evidence anyone else may put forward for theirs. I see
> >person B reasonably pointing out that her experience is different and
> >making an offer of evidence to back up her assertions. I don't know
> >either person, so I have no evidence as to either person's general
> >trustworthiness.
>
> I see person A stating the facts, facts that have been backed up by
> those that work at the hard end of cat care in the UK.

I didn't ask you to tell me what you can see. I know what you can see.
You never tire of shouting it.

I was telling you what I could see, and asking you to consider it from
my perspective.

You _are_ capable of doing this, aren't you?

> >Confronted with that situation, who would you be more likely to take
> >seriously? Why?
>
> Frankly, I always go for the facts.

Frankly, I doubt that you can tell the difference.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 2nd 04, 10:29 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >Giving you an impression is not the same thing as proving.
>
> In your opinion.

No, period.

> >When they offer evidence to back up their position it's quite normal
> >to retreat from such a dogmatic position and consider that evidence.
>
> Sorry, but when you know the facts as well as I do then there is no
> retreat needed.

You're claiming absolute knowledge. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof, proof that permits of no contradiction. You haven't
provided this - you've simply repeated your assertion over and over.

> >No she wasn't - you refused her every offer to back up her
> >statements.
>
> She was given ample opportunity to back out of the hole she was
> digging, she insisted on keeping up the digging rather than take any
> of the outs that were offered.

What _are_ you blathering on about? What hole? What digging?

You made a statement.

She refuted it, citing her experience as counter-example.

You repeated your assertion, and called her integrity into question,
without offering any evidence.

She offered evidence to back her counter-example.

You once more repeated your assertion, repeated your questioning of her
integrity, again without question, and refused to even consider her
evidence.

She, being a rational human being, gave up at this point, and made an
uncharitable (although broadly accurate) assertion about your
self-opinion.

In all of this, it's you that's coming off as the jerk.

I don't believe you - I believe her. Sadly, you are more responsible for
this than she is.

> >Put yourself in my shoes. I see person A shouting the same thing over
> >and over, whilst refusing to offer evidence for his assertions, or
> >consider evidence anyone else may put forward for theirs. I see
> >person B reasonably pointing out that her experience is different and
> >making an offer of evidence to back up her assertions. I don't know
> >either person, so I have no evidence as to either person's general
> >trustworthiness.
>
> I see person A stating the facts, facts that have been backed up by
> those that work at the hard end of cat care in the UK.

I didn't ask you to tell me what you can see. I know what you can see.
You never tire of shouting it.

I was telling you what I could see, and asking you to consider it from
my perspective.

You _are_ capable of doing this, aren't you?

> >Confronted with that situation, who would you be more likely to take
> >seriously? Why?
>
> Frankly, I always go for the facts.

Frankly, I doubt that you can tell the difference.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Bob Brenchley.
March 4th 04, 11:57 AM
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 22:29:08 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> >Giving you an impression is not the same thing as proving.
>>
>> In your opinion.
>
>No, period.

As I said, in your opinion.
>
>> >When they offer evidence to back up their position it's quite normal
>> >to retreat from such a dogmatic position and consider that evidence.
>>
>> Sorry, but when you know the facts as well as I do then there is no
>> retreat needed.
>
>You're claiming absolute knowledge. Extraordinary claims require
>extraordinary proof, proof that permits of no contradiction. You haven't
>provided this - you've simply repeated your assertion over and over.

Nope. I'm claiming facts, and have given her all the outs that are
possible. She hasn't taken one and continues to stick to her initial
lie.
>
>> >No she wasn't - you refused her every offer to back up her
>> >statements.
>>
>> She was given ample opportunity to back out of the hole she was
>> digging, she insisted on keeping up the digging rather than take any
>> of the outs that were offered.
>
>What _are_ you blathering on about? What hole? What digging?
>
>You made a statement.

I have given the facts.
>
>She refuted it, citing her experience as counter-example.

No, she cannot refute it.
>
>You repeated your assertion, and called her integrity into question,
>without offering any evidence.

The fact that she tried to refute already proven facts, and continued
to do so even after the various possible "get outs" had been offered,
was what called her integrity into question.
>
>She offered evidence to back her counter-example.

That is the point, there cannot be any evidence. Either the cats she
has (if they exist) come under one of the groups which people like
Cats Protection will consider for indoor only homes[1] or she lied to
CP at the time of the home visit telling them that the cats would have
time outside.

[1] even with many of those which do fit into the limited categories
considered for indoor only homes CP would prefer them to have homes
where they can go out.
>
>You once more repeated your assertion, repeated your questioning of her
>integrity, again without question, and refused to even consider her
>evidence.
>
>She, being a rational human being, gave up at this point, and made an
>uncharitable (although broadly accurate) assertion about your
>self-opinion.

Rational human beings to not ill treat cats by keeping them in 24/7.
>
>In all of this, it's you that's coming off as the jerk.
>
>I don't believe you - I believe her. Sadly, you are more responsible for
>this than she is.

I'm not the one abusing cats and lying. She is.
>
>> >Put yourself in my shoes. I see person A shouting the same thing over
>> >and over, whilst refusing to offer evidence for his assertions, or
>> >consider evidence anyone else may put forward for theirs. I see
>> >person B reasonably pointing out that her experience is different and
>> >making an offer of evidence to back up her assertions. I don't know
>> >either person, so I have no evidence as to either person's general
>> >trustworthiness.
>>
>> I see person A stating the facts, facts that have been backed up by
>> those that work at the hard end of cat care in the UK.
>
>I didn't ask you to tell me what you can see. I know what you can see.
>You never tire of shouting it.
>
>I was telling you what I could see, and asking you to consider it from
>my perspective.
>
>You _are_ capable of doing this, aren't you?

Not when it goes against the facts.
>
>> >Confronted with that situation, who would you be more likely to take
>> >seriously? Why?
>>
>> Frankly, I always go for the facts.
>
>Frankly, I doubt that you can tell the difference.

It is very easy.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 4th 04, 11:57 AM
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 22:29:08 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> >Giving you an impression is not the same thing as proving.
>>
>> In your opinion.
>
>No, period.

As I said, in your opinion.
>
>> >When they offer evidence to back up their position it's quite normal
>> >to retreat from such a dogmatic position and consider that evidence.
>>
>> Sorry, but when you know the facts as well as I do then there is no
>> retreat needed.
>
>You're claiming absolute knowledge. Extraordinary claims require
>extraordinary proof, proof that permits of no contradiction. You haven't
>provided this - you've simply repeated your assertion over and over.

Nope. I'm claiming facts, and have given her all the outs that are
possible. She hasn't taken one and continues to stick to her initial
lie.
>
>> >No she wasn't - you refused her every offer to back up her
>> >statements.
>>
>> She was given ample opportunity to back out of the hole she was
>> digging, she insisted on keeping up the digging rather than take any
>> of the outs that were offered.
>
>What _are_ you blathering on about? What hole? What digging?
>
>You made a statement.

I have given the facts.
>
>She refuted it, citing her experience as counter-example.

No, she cannot refute it.
>
>You repeated your assertion, and called her integrity into question,
>without offering any evidence.

The fact that she tried to refute already proven facts, and continued
to do so even after the various possible "get outs" had been offered,
was what called her integrity into question.
>
>She offered evidence to back her counter-example.

That is the point, there cannot be any evidence. Either the cats she
has (if they exist) come under one of the groups which people like
Cats Protection will consider for indoor only homes[1] or she lied to
CP at the time of the home visit telling them that the cats would have
time outside.

[1] even with many of those which do fit into the limited categories
considered for indoor only homes CP would prefer them to have homes
where they can go out.
>
>You once more repeated your assertion, repeated your questioning of her
>integrity, again without question, and refused to even consider her
>evidence.
>
>She, being a rational human being, gave up at this point, and made an
>uncharitable (although broadly accurate) assertion about your
>self-opinion.

Rational human beings to not ill treat cats by keeping them in 24/7.
>
>In all of this, it's you that's coming off as the jerk.
>
>I don't believe you - I believe her. Sadly, you are more responsible for
>this than she is.

I'm not the one abusing cats and lying. She is.
>
>> >Put yourself in my shoes. I see person A shouting the same thing over
>> >and over, whilst refusing to offer evidence for his assertions, or
>> >consider evidence anyone else may put forward for theirs. I see
>> >person B reasonably pointing out that her experience is different and
>> >making an offer of evidence to back up her assertions. I don't know
>> >either person, so I have no evidence as to either person's general
>> >trustworthiness.
>>
>> I see person A stating the facts, facts that have been backed up by
>> those that work at the hard end of cat care in the UK.
>
>I didn't ask you to tell me what you can see. I know what you can see.
>You never tire of shouting it.
>
>I was telling you what I could see, and asking you to consider it from
>my perspective.
>
>You _are_ capable of doing this, aren't you?

Not when it goes against the facts.
>
>> >Confronted with that situation, who would you be more likely to take
>> >seriously? Why?
>>
>> Frankly, I always go for the facts.
>
>Frankly, I doubt that you can tell the difference.

It is very easy.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 4th 04, 12:07 PM
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:00:45 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> >You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
>> >claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your
>> >eyes open at the time.
>>
>> There is no evidence to see.
>
>She says there is, and she's happy to produce it.

She can't, all she can do is go on lying.
>
>> >(a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
>> >probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.
>>
>> Irrelevant, it is still indoors.
>
>Not irrelevant at all. The issue for cats is space and interest - cats
>need territory of a certain size, for prowling in, and need enough of
>interest going on in this territory. The territory varies from cat
>to cat; for a spayed male it tends to be quite small. They also need a
>degree of security in it, and enough going on in it to capture their
>interest. Indoors or outdoors is a quite artificial distinction, once
>the space requirement is satisfied.

Rubbish. Do you have a lawn in your front room, maybe a bramble patch
in the study? How about some nice big trees? A few million bugs, lots
of plants, dozens of cats, fresh air, rain, mud, how about a nice
sunny shed roof to bask on?
>
>> >(b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.
>>
>> No, policy is set higher up.
>
>Policies set higher up are usually flexible on the ground. This applies
>to all organisations; I can't see why the CPL would be any different.

Because the policies they have have worked for many years.
>
>> If they have been kept in all there lives they would go to someone
>> experience in handling such cases. Someone like me. It can take months
>> to build an older cat's confidence in the outside world, but the
>> results are so rewarding I'm happy to spend whatever time is needed.
>
>I'm sorry, Bob, but from the evidence you have put forward and the
>personality traits you have exhibited on this newsgroup, I doubt you're
>either flexible or sympathetic enough to be capable of doing what you
>claim here.

In real life I don't have to spend so much time dealing with cat
hating trolls.


>
>And then I read the next clause...
>
>> >(e) the cats consistently refused to leave the house, so she gave up
>> >trying to persuade them.
>>
>> That would be a sign of mental illness that needs treating. See above.
>
>Bob, you do realise that you've just said that there's something wrong
>with a cat that won't do what you think cats should do, don't you?

Yes, you have a problem with that?

>Attempting to impose your dogma on what a cat should do on a newsgroup
>is one thing. Attempting to impose it on a cat is something else. I'm
>familiar with psychological abuse from my own life - and your attitude
>to cats, as stated above, is psychologically abusive.

I'm pleased to say there are now a growing number of vets who will
refer a cat to an animal behavioural expert to deal with this sort of
problem.
>
>> >You may be short of imagination, Bob, but don't try and project it
>> >onto us as absolute truth. You're not in possession of that, and
>> >neither is anyone else.
>>
>> You have a very vivid imagination, but not one that fits very well
>> with the real world.
>
>Rich, coming from someone who doesn't permit the existence of an
>experience different from his own.

It not my own we are discussing.
>
>> >...and as far as I can see, that constitutes the majority the
>> >newsgroup. Ever wonder about that, Bob? Ever stop to think that just
>> >perhaps a newsgroup does not find itself populated almost exclusively
>> >by lying trolls - especially not lying trolls who seem perfectly
>> >capable of getting on with everyone else in the newsgroup and not
>> >insisting that their opinions are fact - until you, the vessel of
>> >ultimate revelation, arrives to set it to rights? Ever considered
>> >that just perhaps it might be you that's in the wrong?
>>
>> You will find that there are a lot of other cat lovers out there, and
>> most of them will confirm all that I've said.
>
>I have known a lot of other cat lovers. All of them are devoted to their
>felines. None of them would ever abuse an animal, or tolerate such
>abuse. The majority of them let their cats out; a couple don't.

Those that don't, unless there is a medical reason, are abusing their
cats.
>
>[.sig quote]
>> I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
>> public.
>
>*sigh* Is there any signature in your collection that is not
>crafted to convey your utter belief in your own intellectual superiority
>to just about everyone else you ever come into contact with?

Over animal abusers even a slug has intellectual superiority.
>
>If you must disagree with people, fine, do so. People are different.
>But stop being so damned RUDE about it.

Only when people stop accepting animal abuse.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 4th 04, 12:07 PM
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:00:45 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> >You've refused all offers of documentary evidence. If you're going to
>> >claim there's nothing to see, it's more believable if you have your
>> >eyes open at the time.
>>
>> There is no evidence to see.
>
>She says there is, and she's happy to produce it.

She can't, all she can do is go on lying.
>
>> >(a) she may have a mansion, in which case the floor space indoors is
>> >probably larger than most cats will have access to outdoors.
>>
>> Irrelevant, it is still indoors.
>
>Not irrelevant at all. The issue for cats is space and interest - cats
>need territory of a certain size, for prowling in, and need enough of
>interest going on in this territory. The territory varies from cat
>to cat; for a spayed male it tends to be quite small. They also need a
>degree of security in it, and enough going on in it to capture their
>interest. Indoors or outdoors is a quite artificial distinction, once
>the space requirement is satisfied.

Rubbish. Do you have a lawn in your front room, maybe a bramble patch
in the study? How about some nice big trees? A few million bugs, lots
of plants, dozens of cats, fresh air, rain, mud, how about a nice
sunny shed roof to bask on?
>
>> >(b) her local office may differ from the norm in policy.
>>
>> No, policy is set higher up.
>
>Policies set higher up are usually flexible on the ground. This applies
>to all organisations; I can't see why the CPL would be any different.

Because the policies they have have worked for many years.
>
>> If they have been kept in all there lives they would go to someone
>> experience in handling such cases. Someone like me. It can take months
>> to build an older cat's confidence in the outside world, but the
>> results are so rewarding I'm happy to spend whatever time is needed.
>
>I'm sorry, Bob, but from the evidence you have put forward and the
>personality traits you have exhibited on this newsgroup, I doubt you're
>either flexible or sympathetic enough to be capable of doing what you
>claim here.

In real life I don't have to spend so much time dealing with cat
hating trolls.


>
>And then I read the next clause...
>
>> >(e) the cats consistently refused to leave the house, so she gave up
>> >trying to persuade them.
>>
>> That would be a sign of mental illness that needs treating. See above.
>
>Bob, you do realise that you've just said that there's something wrong
>with a cat that won't do what you think cats should do, don't you?

Yes, you have a problem with that?

>Attempting to impose your dogma on what a cat should do on a newsgroup
>is one thing. Attempting to impose it on a cat is something else. I'm
>familiar with psychological abuse from my own life - and your attitude
>to cats, as stated above, is psychologically abusive.

I'm pleased to say there are now a growing number of vets who will
refer a cat to an animal behavioural expert to deal with this sort of
problem.
>
>> >You may be short of imagination, Bob, but don't try and project it
>> >onto us as absolute truth. You're not in possession of that, and
>> >neither is anyone else.
>>
>> You have a very vivid imagination, but not one that fits very well
>> with the real world.
>
>Rich, coming from someone who doesn't permit the existence of an
>experience different from his own.

It not my own we are discussing.
>
>> >...and as far as I can see, that constitutes the majority the
>> >newsgroup. Ever wonder about that, Bob? Ever stop to think that just
>> >perhaps a newsgroup does not find itself populated almost exclusively
>> >by lying trolls - especially not lying trolls who seem perfectly
>> >capable of getting on with everyone else in the newsgroup and not
>> >insisting that their opinions are fact - until you, the vessel of
>> >ultimate revelation, arrives to set it to rights? Ever considered
>> >that just perhaps it might be you that's in the wrong?
>>
>> You will find that there are a lot of other cat lovers out there, and
>> most of them will confirm all that I've said.
>
>I have known a lot of other cat lovers. All of them are devoted to their
>felines. None of them would ever abuse an animal, or tolerate such
>abuse. The majority of them let their cats out; a couple don't.

Those that don't, unless there is a medical reason, are abusing their
cats.
>
>[.sig quote]
>> I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
>> public.
>
>*sigh* Is there any signature in your collection that is not
>crafted to convey your utter belief in your own intellectual superiority
>to just about everyone else you ever come into contact with?

Over animal abusers even a slug has intellectual superiority.
>
>If you must disagree with people, fine, do so. People are different.
>But stop being so damned RUDE about it.

Only when people stop accepting animal abuse.

--
Bob.

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

Jacqueline
March 4th 04, 03:48 PM
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:57:23 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>She refuted it, citing her experience as counter-example.
>
>No, she cannot refute it.

I just did. About a millions times. You're too blind, stupid or
stubborn to absorb any information that contradicts your own. It's
that sort of closed-mindedness that has caused wars and hatred for the
past X centuries. Here was me thinking we were evolving. Evidently not
if there are people like you still hanging around on the planet.

>>She offered evidence to back her counter-example.
>
>That is the point, there cannot be any evidence. Either the cats she
>has (if they exist) come under one of the groups which people like
>Cats Protection will consider for indoor only homes[1] or she lied to
>CP at the time of the home visit telling them that the cats would have
>time outside.

Look you stupid fool, my cats exist, my experience exists, my
voluntary work for the CP exists. If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
also done *after* cats have been rehomed - they remain the 'property'
of the CP for 6 months and can be removed at any time in that period.
Do you actually know *anything* about the organisation?? Anyone can
come see my cats *AT ANY TIME* I'm proud they are happy and healthy
and I devote a large part of my day ensuring they remain so. How DARE
you call my integrity or ability to look after my animals into
question. You know jack ****.

I give up. Believe what you want.

Jacqueline
March 4th 04, 03:48 PM
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:57:23 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>She refuted it, citing her experience as counter-example.
>
>No, she cannot refute it.

I just did. About a millions times. You're too blind, stupid or
stubborn to absorb any information that contradicts your own. It's
that sort of closed-mindedness that has caused wars and hatred for the
past X centuries. Here was me thinking we were evolving. Evidently not
if there are people like you still hanging around on the planet.

>>She offered evidence to back her counter-example.
>
>That is the point, there cannot be any evidence. Either the cats she
>has (if they exist) come under one of the groups which people like
>Cats Protection will consider for indoor only homes[1] or she lied to
>CP at the time of the home visit telling them that the cats would have
>time outside.

Look you stupid fool, my cats exist, my experience exists, my
voluntary work for the CP exists. If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
also done *after* cats have been rehomed - they remain the 'property'
of the CP for 6 months and can be removed at any time in that period.
Do you actually know *anything* about the organisation?? Anyone can
come see my cats *AT ANY TIME* I'm proud they are happy and healthy
and I devote a large part of my day ensuring they remain so. How DARE
you call my integrity or ability to look after my animals into
question. You know jack ****.

I give up. Believe what you want.

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 4th 04, 05:46 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >> >Giving you an impression is not the same thing as proving.
> >>
> >> In your opinion.
> >
> >No, period.
>
> As I said, in your opinion.

I don't think any further discussion is possible with you, Bob, if you
can't even acknowledge that your impressions and the state of the world
may be different things - if every time I say "but you may be wrong
because of X" you counter with "it's not possible for me to be wrong".
That very assertion is necessarily incorrect in itself.

Sorry I wasted my time.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 4th 04, 05:46 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> >> >Giving you an impression is not the same thing as proving.
> >>
> >> In your opinion.
> >
> >No, period.
>
> As I said, in your opinion.

I don't think any further discussion is possible with you, Bob, if you
can't even acknowledge that your impressions and the state of the world
may be different things - if every time I say "but you may be wrong
because of X" you counter with "it's not possible for me to be wrong".
That very assertion is necessarily incorrect in itself.

Sorry I wasted my time.
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Bob Brenchley.
March 4th 04, 05:58 PM
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:48:23 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:57:23 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>>She refuted it, citing her experience as counter-example.
>>
>>No, she cannot refute it.
>
>I just did. About a millions times. You're too blind, stupid or
>stubborn to absorb any information that contradicts your own. It's
>that sort of closed-mindedness that has caused wars and hatred for the
>past X centuries. Here was me thinking we were evolving. Evidently not
>if there are people like you still hanging around on the planet.

Here was me, thinking that in the main British people were truthful as
well as animal lovers - and then along comes you.
>
>>>She offered evidence to back her counter-example.
>>
>>That is the point, there cannot be any evidence. Either the cats she
>>has (if they exist) come under one of the groups which people like
>>Cats Protection will consider for indoor only homes[1] or she lied to
>>CP at the time of the home visit telling them that the cats would have
>>time outside.
>
>Look you stupid fool, my cats exist, my experience exists, my
>voluntary work for the CP exists.

We only have your word on that, and that isn't good enough as so much
of what you say flies in the face of known facts.

> If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
>anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
>also done *after* cats have been rehomed

WRONG. Home checks are ALWAYS done, without fail, BEFORE cats are
rehomed, though in some cases later home visits will be made to check
on their progress.

http://www.cats.org.uk/html/index.php?sect_id=17

> - they remain the 'property'
>of the CP for 6 months and can be removed at any time in that period.

Cats are not considered property.

>Do you actually know *anything* about the organisation??

Yes, one hell of a lot more than you it seems.

>Anyone can
>come see my cats *AT ANY TIME* I'm proud they are happy and healthy
>and I devote a large part of my day ensuring they remain so. How DARE
>you call my integrity or ability to look after my animals into
>question. You know jack ****.

Strange you should mention him. For a long time I used to wonder just
who this Jack Schitt was? So many people would claim, "You don't know
Jack Schitt!" But when I asked it turned out they didn't know him
either.

Well, thanks to my genealogy efforts, you can now respond in an
intellectual way.

Jack Schitt is the only son of Awe Schitt.

Awe Schitt, the fertilizer magnate, married O.Schitt, the owner of
Needeep N. Schitt Ltd, They had one son, Jack.

In turn, Jack Schitt married Noe Schitt. The deeply religious couple
produced six children: Holie Schitt, Giva Schitt, Fulla Schitt, Bull
Schitt, and the twins Deap Schitt and Dip Schitt.

Against her parents' objections, Deap Schitt married Dumb Schitt, a
real social dropout.

After being married for 15 years, Jack and Noe Schitt divorced.

Noe Schitt later married Ted Sherlock, and because her kids were
living with them, she wanted to keep her previous name. She was then
know as Noe Schitt Sherlock.

Meanwhile, Dip Schitt married Loda Schitt, and they produced a son
with a rather nervous disposition named Chicken Schitt.

Two of the other six children, Fulla Schitt and Giva Schitt, were
inseparable throughout childhood and subsequently married the Happens
brothers in a dual ceremony.

The wedding announcement in the newspaper announced the ****t-Happens
nuptials. The Schitt-Happen children were Dawg, Byrd and Hoarse.

Bull Schitt the prodigal son, left home to tour the world. He recently
returned from Italy with his new Italian bride, Pisa Schitt.

Now when someone says, "You don't know Jack Schitt" you can correct
them.

>
>I give up. Believe what you want.

I believe that you are either a liar, a troll, or possibly both. If
you do keep cats indoors 24/7 then you are also a sick animal abuser.

--
Bob.

I tell you what, you should be on educational TV, you certainly make
me feel so much smarter..?

Bob Brenchley.
March 4th 04, 05:58 PM
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:48:23 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 11:57:23 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>>She refuted it, citing her experience as counter-example.
>>
>>No, she cannot refute it.
>
>I just did. About a millions times. You're too blind, stupid or
>stubborn to absorb any information that contradicts your own. It's
>that sort of closed-mindedness that has caused wars and hatred for the
>past X centuries. Here was me thinking we were evolving. Evidently not
>if there are people like you still hanging around on the planet.

Here was me, thinking that in the main British people were truthful as
well as animal lovers - and then along comes you.
>
>>>She offered evidence to back her counter-example.
>>
>>That is the point, there cannot be any evidence. Either the cats she
>>has (if they exist) come under one of the groups which people like
>>Cats Protection will consider for indoor only homes[1] or she lied to
>>CP at the time of the home visit telling them that the cats would have
>>time outside.
>
>Look you stupid fool, my cats exist, my experience exists, my
>voluntary work for the CP exists.

We only have your word on that, and that isn't good enough as so much
of what you say flies in the face of known facts.

> If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
>anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
>also done *after* cats have been rehomed

WRONG. Home checks are ALWAYS done, without fail, BEFORE cats are
rehomed, though in some cases later home visits will be made to check
on their progress.

http://www.cats.org.uk/html/index.php?sect_id=17

> - they remain the 'property'
>of the CP for 6 months and can be removed at any time in that period.

Cats are not considered property.

>Do you actually know *anything* about the organisation??

Yes, one hell of a lot more than you it seems.

>Anyone can
>come see my cats *AT ANY TIME* I'm proud they are happy and healthy
>and I devote a large part of my day ensuring they remain so. How DARE
>you call my integrity or ability to look after my animals into
>question. You know jack ****.

Strange you should mention him. For a long time I used to wonder just
who this Jack Schitt was? So many people would claim, "You don't know
Jack Schitt!" But when I asked it turned out they didn't know him
either.

Well, thanks to my genealogy efforts, you can now respond in an
intellectual way.

Jack Schitt is the only son of Awe Schitt.

Awe Schitt, the fertilizer magnate, married O.Schitt, the owner of
Needeep N. Schitt Ltd, They had one son, Jack.

In turn, Jack Schitt married Noe Schitt. The deeply religious couple
produced six children: Holie Schitt, Giva Schitt, Fulla Schitt, Bull
Schitt, and the twins Deap Schitt and Dip Schitt.

Against her parents' objections, Deap Schitt married Dumb Schitt, a
real social dropout.

After being married for 15 years, Jack and Noe Schitt divorced.

Noe Schitt later married Ted Sherlock, and because her kids were
living with them, she wanted to keep her previous name. She was then
know as Noe Schitt Sherlock.

Meanwhile, Dip Schitt married Loda Schitt, and they produced a son
with a rather nervous disposition named Chicken Schitt.

Two of the other six children, Fulla Schitt and Giva Schitt, were
inseparable throughout childhood and subsequently married the Happens
brothers in a dual ceremony.

The wedding announcement in the newspaper announced the ****t-Happens
nuptials. The Schitt-Happen children were Dawg, Byrd and Hoarse.

Bull Schitt the prodigal son, left home to tour the world. He recently
returned from Italy with his new Italian bride, Pisa Schitt.

Now when someone says, "You don't know Jack Schitt" you can correct
them.

>
>I give up. Believe what you want.

I believe that you are either a liar, a troll, or possibly both. If
you do keep cats indoors 24/7 then you are also a sick animal abuser.

--
Bob.

I tell you what, you should be on educational TV, you certainly make
me feel so much smarter..?

Jacqueline
March 4th 04, 06:48 PM
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:58:24 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>Look you stupid fool, my cats exist, my experience exists, my
>>voluntary work for the CP exists.
>
>We only have your word on that, and that isn't good enough as so much
>of what you say flies in the face of known facts.

I offered you evidence repeatedly, what more do you want? Yes, you
only have my word here but you can have any evidence you want. I've
got adoption contracts, my name's on the local branch newsletter, I
can give you names of other members of my branch, or people whom I've
been involved with in rehoming. I guess that's not evidence enough
though, is it.

>> If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
>>anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
>>also done *after* cats have been rehomed
>
>WRONG. Home checks are ALWAYS done, without fail, BEFORE cats are
>rehomed, though in some cases later home visits will be made to check
>on their progress.

Note I said 'also' there. Please read what's said before you spout
your nonsense. 'Home checks are ALSO done' after rehoming - so if I'd
lied in my initial home visit I'd be caught out in subsequent visits.

>> - they remain the 'property'
>>of the CP for 6 months and can be removed at any time in that period.
>
>Cats are not considered property.

I agree, but that's what was implied on the contract I had to sign. I
may still have it kicking around somewhere... Here we are: It says I
only accept the cat/kitten for a trial period of 6 months. Should I be
unable to keep it for any reason it must be returned to CP without me
offering it to anyone else. In effect, it's their property.

>>I give up. Believe what you want.
>
>I believe that you are either a liar, a troll, or possibly both. If
>you do keep cats indoors 24/7 then you are also a sick animal abuser.

....

Jacqueline
March 4th 04, 06:48 PM
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:58:24 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>Look you stupid fool, my cats exist, my experience exists, my
>>voluntary work for the CP exists.
>
>We only have your word on that, and that isn't good enough as so much
>of what you say flies in the face of known facts.

I offered you evidence repeatedly, what more do you want? Yes, you
only have my word here but you can have any evidence you want. I've
got adoption contracts, my name's on the local branch newsletter, I
can give you names of other members of my branch, or people whom I've
been involved with in rehoming. I guess that's not evidence enough
though, is it.

>> If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
>>anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
>>also done *after* cats have been rehomed
>
>WRONG. Home checks are ALWAYS done, without fail, BEFORE cats are
>rehomed, though in some cases later home visits will be made to check
>on their progress.

Note I said 'also' there. Please read what's said before you spout
your nonsense. 'Home checks are ALSO done' after rehoming - so if I'd
lied in my initial home visit I'd be caught out in subsequent visits.

>> - they remain the 'property'
>>of the CP for 6 months and can be removed at any time in that period.
>
>Cats are not considered property.

I agree, but that's what was implied on the contract I had to sign. I
may still have it kicking around somewhere... Here we are: It says I
only accept the cat/kitten for a trial period of 6 months. Should I be
unable to keep it for any reason it must be returned to CP without me
offering it to anyone else. In effect, it's their property.

>>I give up. Believe what you want.
>
>I believe that you are either a liar, a troll, or possibly both. If
>you do keep cats indoors 24/7 then you are also a sick animal abuser.

....

Jacqueline
March 4th 04, 06:55 PM
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:48:49 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>>Cats are not considered property.
>
>I agree, but that's what was implied on the contract I had to sign. I
>may still have it kicking around somewhere... Here we are: It says I
>only accept the cat/kitten for a trial period of 6 months. Should I be
>unable to keep it for any reason it must be returned to CP without me
>offering it to anyone else. In effect, it's their property.

Actually, on closer inspection it does say 'property'.

"It is agreed that the following cat/kitten, being the property of the
Cats Protection League is to be adopted by the above applicant subject
to the following conditions."

Jacqueline
March 4th 04, 06:55 PM
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:48:49 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>>Cats are not considered property.
>
>I agree, but that's what was implied on the contract I had to sign. I
>may still have it kicking around somewhere... Here we are: It says I
>only accept the cat/kitten for a trial period of 6 months. Should I be
>unable to keep it for any reason it must be returned to CP without me
>offering it to anyone else. In effect, it's their property.

Actually, on closer inspection it does say 'property'.

"It is agreed that the following cat/kitten, being the property of the
Cats Protection League is to be adopted by the above applicant subject
to the following conditions."

Bob Brenchley.
March 5th 04, 09:48 AM
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:48:49 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:58:24 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>>Look you stupid fool, my cats exist, my experience exists, my
>>>voluntary work for the CP exists.
>>
>>We only have your word on that, and that isn't good enough as so much
>>of what you say flies in the face of known facts.
>
>I offered you evidence repeatedly, what more do you want?

The truth?

>Yes, you
>only have my word here but you can have any evidence you want. I've
>got adoption contracts, my name's on the local branch newsletter, I
>can give you names of other members of my branch, or people whom I've
>been involved with in rehoming. I guess that's not evidence enough
>though, is it.

The thing is that what you claim doesn't fit in with the facts.

You claim you adopted normal healthy cats from Cats Protection with
them knowing in advance that you were going to keep them indoors 24/7.
Highly improbable.

You claim that you got your cats without a home check. Impossible.

You claim that CP will consider homing cats to indoor only situations.
Wrong.
>
>>> If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
>>>anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
>>>also done *after* cats have been rehomed
>>
>>WRONG. Home checks are ALWAYS done, without fail, BEFORE cats are
>>rehomed, though in some cases later home visits will be made to check
>>on their progress.
>
>Note I said 'also' there.

Oh good get out there Little Miss Troll.

>Please read what's said before you spout
>your nonsense. 'Home checks are ALSO done' after rehoming - so if I'd
>lied in my initial home visit I'd be caught out in subsequent visits.
>
>>> - they remain the 'property'
>>>of the CP for 6 months and can be removed at any time in that period.
>>
>>Cats are not considered property.
>
>I agree, but that's what was implied on the contract I had to sign. I
>may still have it kicking around somewhere... Here we are: It says I
>only accept the cat/kitten for a trial period of 6 months. Should I be
>unable to keep it for any reason it must be returned to CP without me
>offering it to anyone else. In effect, it's their property.

Cats are not considered property.
>
>>>I give up. Believe what you want.
>>
>>I believe that you are either a liar, a troll, or possibly both. If
>>you do keep cats indoors 24/7 then you are also a sick animal abuser.
>
>...
--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 5th 04, 09:48 AM
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:48:49 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:58:24 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>>>Look you stupid fool, my cats exist, my experience exists, my
>>>voluntary work for the CP exists.
>>
>>We only have your word on that, and that isn't good enough as so much
>>of what you say flies in the face of known facts.
>
>I offered you evidence repeatedly, what more do you want?

The truth?

>Yes, you
>only have my word here but you can have any evidence you want. I've
>got adoption contracts, my name's on the local branch newsletter, I
>can give you names of other members of my branch, or people whom I've
>been involved with in rehoming. I guess that's not evidence enough
>though, is it.

The thing is that what you claim doesn't fit in with the facts.

You claim you adopted normal healthy cats from Cats Protection with
them knowing in advance that you were going to keep them indoors 24/7.
Highly improbable.

You claim that you got your cats without a home check. Impossible.

You claim that CP will consider homing cats to indoor only situations.
Wrong.
>
>>> If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
>>>anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
>>>also done *after* cats have been rehomed
>>
>>WRONG. Home checks are ALWAYS done, without fail, BEFORE cats are
>>rehomed, though in some cases later home visits will be made to check
>>on their progress.
>
>Note I said 'also' there.

Oh good get out there Little Miss Troll.

>Please read what's said before you spout
>your nonsense. 'Home checks are ALSO done' after rehoming - so if I'd
>lied in my initial home visit I'd be caught out in subsequent visits.
>
>>> - they remain the 'property'
>>>of the CP for 6 months and can be removed at any time in that period.
>>
>>Cats are not considered property.
>
>I agree, but that's what was implied on the contract I had to sign. I
>may still have it kicking around somewhere... Here we are: It says I
>only accept the cat/kitten for a trial period of 6 months. Should I be
>unable to keep it for any reason it must be returned to CP without me
>offering it to anyone else. In effect, it's their property.

Cats are not considered property.
>
>>>I give up. Believe what you want.
>>
>>I believe that you are either a liar, a troll, or possibly both. If
>>you do keep cats indoors 24/7 then you are also a sick animal abuser.
>
>...
--
Bob.

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

Jacqueline
March 5th 04, 10:38 AM
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:48:59 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>>I offered you evidence repeatedly, what more do you want?
>
>The truth?

Always giiven,

>>Yes, you
>>only have my word here but you can have any evidence you want. I've
>>got adoption contracts, my name's on the local branch newsletter, I
>>can give you names of other members of my branch, or people whom I've
>>been involved with in rehoming. I guess that's not evidence enough
>>though, is it.
>
>The thing is that what you claim doesn't fit in with the facts.
>
>You claim you adopted normal healthy cats from Cats Protection with
>them knowing in advance that you were going to keep them indoors 24/7.
>Highly improbable.
>You claim that you got your cats without a home check. Impossible.

Never *once* said that, please find where I did.

As I said on 8th Feb (god has this really been going on for a month):

"It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats
Protection and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats.
I was vetted prior to their arrival and had check-ups afterwards."

>You claim that CP will consider homing cats to indoor only situations.
>Wrong.

Sorry, but you're wrong and I know other people who've done so.

>>>> If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
>>>>anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
>>>>also done *after* cats have been rehomed
>>>
>>>WRONG. Home checks are ALWAYS done, without fail, BEFORE cats are
>>>rehomed, though in some cases later home visits will be made to check
>>>on their progress.
>>
>>Note I said 'also' there.
>
>Oh good get out there Little Miss Troll.

?? It's no get out - you misread what I said in the first place!!

>>I agree, but that's what was implied on the contract I had to sign. I
>>may still have it kicking around somewhere... Here we are: It says I
>>only accept the cat/kitten for a trial period of 6 months. Should I be
>>unable to keep it for any reason it must be returned to CP without me
>>offering it to anyone else. In effect, it's their property.
>
>Cats are not considered property.

Not my me, no, but that's what it said on the adoption contract.
Refuting that too are we? Shall I scan it in?

Jacqueline
March 5th 04, 10:38 AM
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:48:59 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>>I offered you evidence repeatedly, what more do you want?
>
>The truth?

Always giiven,

>>Yes, you
>>only have my word here but you can have any evidence you want. I've
>>got adoption contracts, my name's on the local branch newsletter, I
>>can give you names of other members of my branch, or people whom I've
>>been involved with in rehoming. I guess that's not evidence enough
>>though, is it.
>
>The thing is that what you claim doesn't fit in with the facts.
>
>You claim you adopted normal healthy cats from Cats Protection with
>them knowing in advance that you were going to keep them indoors 24/7.
>Highly improbable.
>You claim that you got your cats without a home check. Impossible.

Never *once* said that, please find where I did.

As I said on 8th Feb (god has this really been going on for a month):

"It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats
Protection and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats.
I was vetted prior to their arrival and had check-ups afterwards."

>You claim that CP will consider homing cats to indoor only situations.
>Wrong.

Sorry, but you're wrong and I know other people who've done so.

>>>> If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
>>>>anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
>>>>also done *after* cats have been rehomed
>>>
>>>WRONG. Home checks are ALWAYS done, without fail, BEFORE cats are
>>>rehomed, though in some cases later home visits will be made to check
>>>on their progress.
>>
>>Note I said 'also' there.
>
>Oh good get out there Little Miss Troll.

?? It's no get out - you misread what I said in the first place!!

>>I agree, but that's what was implied on the contract I had to sign. I
>>may still have it kicking around somewhere... Here we are: It says I
>>only accept the cat/kitten for a trial period of 6 months. Should I be
>>unable to keep it for any reason it must be returned to CP without me
>>offering it to anyone else. In effect, it's their property.
>
>Cats are not considered property.

Not my me, no, but that's what it said on the adoption contract.
Refuting that too are we? Shall I scan it in?

Bob Brenchley.
March 5th 04, 11:20 AM
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:38:11 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:48:59 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>>I offered you evidence repeatedly, what more do you want?
>>
>>The truth?
>
>Always giiven,

Not from you.
>
>>>Yes, you
>>>only have my word here but you can have any evidence you want. I've
>>>got adoption contracts, my name's on the local branch newsletter, I
>>>can give you names of other members of my branch, or people whom I've
>>>been involved with in rehoming. I guess that's not evidence enough
>>>though, is it.
>>
>>The thing is that what you claim doesn't fit in with the facts.
>>
>>You claim you adopted normal healthy cats from Cats Protection with
>>them knowing in advance that you were going to keep them indoors 24/7.
>>Highly improbable.
>>You claim that you got your cats without a home check. Impossible.
>
>Never *once* said that, please find where I did.

You claimed "Home checks are also done *after* cats have been rehomed"
trying to insinuate that home checks were not done BEFORE homing. Glad
to see you back-tracked on that.
>
>As I said on 8th Feb (god has this really been going on for a month):
>
>"It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats
>Protection and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats.
>I was vetted prior to their arrival and had check-ups afterwards."
>
>>You claim that CP will consider homing cats to indoor only situations.
>>Wrong.
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong and I know other people who've done so.

Wrong. CP do not home healthy cats to indoor only situations except as
a matter of last resort. I can't remember the last time I came across
such a last resort, for you to claim multiple cats who are all in
homes of last resort is unbelievable.
>
>>>>> If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
>>>>>anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
>>>>>also done *after* cats have been rehomed
>>>>
>>>>WRONG. Home checks are ALWAYS done, without fail, BEFORE cats are
>>>>rehomed, though in some cases later home visits will be made to check
>>>>on their progress.
>>>
>>>Note I said 'also' there.
>>
>>Oh good get out there Little Miss Troll.
>
>?? It's no get out - you misread what I said in the first place!!

Your tried, you failed.
>
>>>I agree, but that's what was implied on the contract I had to sign. I
>>>may still have it kicking around somewhere... Here we are: It says I
>>>only accept the cat/kitten for a trial period of 6 months. Should I be
>>>unable to keep it for any reason it must be returned to CP without me
>>>offering it to anyone else. In effect, it's their property.
>>
>>Cats are not considered property.
>
>Not my me, no, but that's what it said on the adoption contract.
>Refuting that too are we? Shall I scan it in?

Cats are not considered property.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 5th 04, 11:20 AM
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:38:11 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:48:59 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:
>
>>>I offered you evidence repeatedly, what more do you want?
>>
>>The truth?
>
>Always giiven,

Not from you.
>
>>>Yes, you
>>>only have my word here but you can have any evidence you want. I've
>>>got adoption contracts, my name's on the local branch newsletter, I
>>>can give you names of other members of my branch, or people whom I've
>>>been involved with in rehoming. I guess that's not evidence enough
>>>though, is it.
>>
>>The thing is that what you claim doesn't fit in with the facts.
>>
>>You claim you adopted normal healthy cats from Cats Protection with
>>them knowing in advance that you were going to keep them indoors 24/7.
>>Highly improbable.
>>You claim that you got your cats without a home check. Impossible.
>
>Never *once* said that, please find where I did.

You claimed "Home checks are also done *after* cats have been rehomed"
trying to insinuate that home checks were not done BEFORE homing. Glad
to see you back-tracked on that.
>
>As I said on 8th Feb (god has this really been going on for a month):
>
>"It's most certainly not a lie, two of my cats are from Cats
>Protection and were homed on the understanding they were indoor cats.
>I was vetted prior to their arrival and had check-ups afterwards."
>
>>You claim that CP will consider homing cats to indoor only situations.
>>Wrong.
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong and I know other people who've done so.

Wrong. CP do not home healthy cats to indoor only situations except as
a matter of last resort. I can't remember the last time I came across
such a last resort, for you to claim multiple cats who are all in
homes of last resort is unbelievable.
>
>>>>> If I'd ever been 'lying' to them or
>>>>>anyone else they could've 'caught me out' any time. Home checks are
>>>>>also done *after* cats have been rehomed
>>>>
>>>>WRONG. Home checks are ALWAYS done, without fail, BEFORE cats are
>>>>rehomed, though in some cases later home visits will be made to check
>>>>on their progress.
>>>
>>>Note I said 'also' there.
>>
>>Oh good get out there Little Miss Troll.
>
>?? It's no get out - you misread what I said in the first place!!

Your tried, you failed.
>
>>>I agree, but that's what was implied on the contract I had to sign. I
>>>may still have it kicking around somewhere... Here we are: It says I
>>>only accept the cat/kitten for a trial period of 6 months. Should I be
>>>unable to keep it for any reason it must be returned to CP without me
>>>offering it to anyone else. In effect, it's their property.
>>
>>Cats are not considered property.
>
>Not my me, no, but that's what it said on the adoption contract.
>Refuting that too are we? Shall I scan it in?

Cats are not considered property.

--
Bob.

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

Jacqueline
March 5th 04, 02:02 PM
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 11:20:37 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>>>You claim that you got your cats without a home check. Impossible.
>>
>>Never *once* said that, please find where I did.
>
>You claimed "Home checks are also done *after* cats have been rehomed"
>trying to insinuate that home checks were not done BEFORE homing. Glad
>to see you back-tracked on that.

Are you blind? Note the inclusion of the word 'also' in that sentence.
ALSO done afterwards i.e. in addition to prior checks. You really are
nit-picking now.

>>Sorry, but you're wrong and I know other people who've done so.
>
>Wrong. CP do not home healthy cats to indoor only situations except as
>a matter of last resort. I can't remember the last time I came across
>such a last resort, for you to claim multiple cats who are all in
>homes of last resort is unbelievable.

Oh for heaven's sake. I've offered you proof, I ask you AGAIN, what
evidence do you want?

>>>Cats are not considered property.
>>
>>Not my me, no, but that's what it said on the adoption contract.
>>Refuting that too are we? Shall I scan it in?
>
>Cats are not considered property.

By whom? Not by me, by the CP, whom we were dicussing. I ask you
AGAIN, do you want a copy of the CP's literature? I'll scan it in for
you.

You're impossible to have a two-way conversation with, how on earth
can anyone discuss anything if you insist you're right and anyone who
disagrees is wrong and must be trolling. One can only assume you get
some weird kick out of this. Sad.

Jacqueline
March 5th 04, 02:02 PM
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 11:20:37 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> wrote:

>>>You claim that you got your cats without a home check. Impossible.
>>
>>Never *once* said that, please find where I did.
>
>You claimed "Home checks are also done *after* cats have been rehomed"
>trying to insinuate that home checks were not done BEFORE homing. Glad
>to see you back-tracked on that.

Are you blind? Note the inclusion of the word 'also' in that sentence.
ALSO done afterwards i.e. in addition to prior checks. You really are
nit-picking now.

>>Sorry, but you're wrong and I know other people who've done so.
>
>Wrong. CP do not home healthy cats to indoor only situations except as
>a matter of last resort. I can't remember the last time I came across
>such a last resort, for you to claim multiple cats who are all in
>homes of last resort is unbelievable.

Oh for heaven's sake. I've offered you proof, I ask you AGAIN, what
evidence do you want?

>>>Cats are not considered property.
>>
>>Not my me, no, but that's what it said on the adoption contract.
>>Refuting that too are we? Shall I scan it in?
>
>Cats are not considered property.

By whom? Not by me, by the CP, whom we were dicussing. I ask you
AGAIN, do you want a copy of the CP's literature? I'll scan it in for
you.

You're impossible to have a two-way conversation with, how on earth
can anyone discuss anything if you insist you're right and anyone who
disagrees is wrong and must be trolling. One can only assume you get
some weird kick out of this. Sad.

---MIKE---
March 5th 04, 02:30 PM
Jacqueline, after 20 posts don't you see that you are doing exactly what
Bob wants you to do- feed him. He will NEVER change and all he wants is
for someone to argue with him so he can answer. He is the original
troll BUT you have fallen into his trap and are trolling also. Also,
note that the site HE referred to (CP) said nothing about not rehoming
cats to an inside only home.


-MIKE

---MIKE---
March 5th 04, 02:30 PM
Jacqueline, after 20 posts don't you see that you are doing exactly what
Bob wants you to do- feed him. He will NEVER change and all he wants is
for someone to argue with him so he can answer. He is the original
troll BUT you have fallen into his trap and are trolling also. Also,
note that the site HE referred to (CP) said nothing about not rehoming
cats to an inside only home.


-MIKE

Jacqueline
March 5th 04, 03:16 PM
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:30:09 -0500 (EST),
(---MIKE---) wrote:

>Jacqueline, after 20 posts don't you see that you are doing exactly what
>Bob wants you to do- feed him. He will NEVER change and all he wants is
>for someone to argue with him so he can answer. He is the original
>troll BUT you have fallen into his trap and are trolling also. Also,
>note that the site HE referred to (CP) said nothing about not rehoming
>cats to an inside only home.

Apologies Mike to you and any others on the group who are fed up with
this. I find Mr Brenchley incredibly infuriating. Apart from his
personal and offensive remarks directed at me, his 'facts' are wrong.
Most people on here seem to be American but Bob seems to be upholding
himself as the voice of reason for the UK, well, I just thought there
needed to be some balance. However, as I'm new to this group I realise
now he probably just does this to anyone who comes along for his
egotistical motives. I hoped to find some interesting anecdotes and
discussion here, sadly that ignorant buffoon has tainted it. I guess
the killfile is the only solution.

Apologies again.

Jacqueline
March 5th 04, 03:16 PM
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:30:09 -0500 (EST),
(---MIKE---) wrote:

>Jacqueline, after 20 posts don't you see that you are doing exactly what
>Bob wants you to do- feed him. He will NEVER change and all he wants is
>for someone to argue with him so he can answer. He is the original
>troll BUT you have fallen into his trap and are trolling also. Also,
>note that the site HE referred to (CP) said nothing about not rehoming
>cats to an inside only home.

Apologies Mike to you and any others on the group who are fed up with
this. I find Mr Brenchley incredibly infuriating. Apart from his
personal and offensive remarks directed at me, his 'facts' are wrong.
Most people on here seem to be American but Bob seems to be upholding
himself as the voice of reason for the UK, well, I just thought there
needed to be some balance. However, as I'm new to this group I realise
now he probably just does this to anyone who comes along for his
egotistical motives. I hoped to find some interesting anecdotes and
discussion here, sadly that ignorant buffoon has tainted it. I guess
the killfile is the only solution.

Apologies again.

Bob Brenchley.
March 5th 04, 06:37 PM
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:16:41 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:30:09 -0500 (EST),
>(---MIKE---) wrote:
>
>>Jacqueline, after 20 posts don't you see that you are doing exactly what
>>Bob wants you to do- feed him. He will NEVER change and all he wants is
>>for someone to argue with him so he can answer. He is the original
>>troll BUT you have fallen into his trap and are trolling also. Also,
>>note that the site HE referred to (CP) said nothing about not rehoming
>>cats to an inside only home.
>
>Apologies Mike to you and any others on the group who are fed up with
>this. I find Mr Brenchley incredibly infuriating.

Most animal abusers like you do.

> Apart from his
>personal and offensive remarks directed at me, his 'facts' are wrong.

No they are not.

>Most people on here seem to be American but Bob seems to be upholding
>himself as the voice of reason for the UK, well, I just thought there
>needed to be some balance.

From a lying troll like you???

> However, as I'm new to this group I realise
>now he probably just does this to anyone who comes along for his
>egotistical motives. I hoped to find some interesting anecdotes and
>discussion here, sadly that ignorant buffoon has tainted it. I guess
>the killfile is the only solution.
>
>Apologies again.

Not accepted until you stop abusing cats.

--
Bob.

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

Bob Brenchley.
March 5th 04, 06:37 PM
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:16:41 +0000, Jacqueline
> wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:30:09 -0500 (EST),
>(---MIKE---) wrote:
>
>>Jacqueline, after 20 posts don't you see that you are doing exactly what
>>Bob wants you to do- feed him. He will NEVER change and all he wants is
>>for someone to argue with him so he can answer. He is the original
>>troll BUT you have fallen into his trap and are trolling also. Also,
>>note that the site HE referred to (CP) said nothing about not rehoming
>>cats to an inside only home.
>
>Apologies Mike to you and any others on the group who are fed up with
>this. I find Mr Brenchley incredibly infuriating.

Most animal abusers like you do.

> Apart from his
>personal and offensive remarks directed at me, his 'facts' are wrong.

No they are not.

>Most people on here seem to be American but Bob seems to be upholding
>himself as the voice of reason for the UK, well, I just thought there
>needed to be some balance.

From a lying troll like you???

> However, as I'm new to this group I realise
>now he probably just does this to anyone who comes along for his
>egotistical motives. I hoped to find some interesting anecdotes and
>discussion here, sadly that ignorant buffoon has tainted it. I guess
>the killfile is the only solution.
>
>Apologies again.

Not accepted until you stop abusing cats.

--
Bob.

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

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 5th 04, 07:04 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> You claimed "Home checks are also done *after* cats have been rehomed"
> trying to insinuate that home checks were not done BEFORE homing.

Stupid little man!!! *plonk*
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
March 5th 04, 07:04 PM
Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
> You claimed "Home checks are also done *after* cats have been rehomed"
> trying to insinuate that home checks were not done BEFORE homing.

Stupid little man!!! *plonk*
--
Gwenhwyfaer (emails need [Private] in the subject)

some girls wander by themselves

Bob Brenchley.
March 7th 04, 12:03 PM
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:04:05 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> You claimed "Home checks are also done *after* cats have been rehomed"
>> trying to insinuate that home checks were not done BEFORE homing.
>
>Stupid little man!!! *plonk*

Loser!

--
Bob.

Sad to see you set such low personal standards and then consistently
fail to achieve them.

Bob Brenchley.
March 7th 04, 12:03 PM
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:04:05 +0000, Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
> wrote:

>Quoth Bob Brenchley.:
>> You claimed "Home checks are also done *after* cats have been rehomed"
>> trying to insinuate that home checks were not done BEFORE homing.
>
>Stupid little man!!! *plonk*

Loser!

--
Bob.

Sad to see you set such low personal standards and then consistently
fail to achieve them.