PDA

View Full Version : Naming & Shaming those who abuse cats


sheelagh
June 15th 07, 04:19 PM
Reading this article seems all too common & sad as well. If only
everyone who abused cats were subject to international scrutiny,
perhaps they would think twice before doing this terrible act. It is
beyond my comprehension as to why anyone would feel the need to
perform this despicable act on defenseless kittens and cats

I'm so pleased to see that just for once, the RSPCA are not going to
accept this ruling lying down. It annoys me that all of their funds
and donations have to be used for prosecuting morons like this, but if
that is what it takes, then let them all be named and shamed. It is
exactly what they deserve.....

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21912684-5001028,00.html

goyangi tan
June 15th 07, 04:36 PM
On Jun 15, 11:19 am, sheelagh > wrote:
> Reading this article seems all too common & sad as well. If only
> everyone who abused cats were subject to international scrutiny,
> perhaps they would think twice before doing this terrible act. It is
> beyond my comprehension as to why anyone would feel the need to
> perform this despicable act on defenseless kittens and cats
>
> I'm so pleased to see that just for once, the RSPCA are not going to
> accept this ruling lying down. It annoys me that all of their funds
> and donations have to be used for prosecuting morons like this, but if
> that is what it takes, then let them all be named and shamed. It is
> exactly what they deserve.....
>
> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21912684-5001028,...

I agree completely. Let's start by shaming an admitted cat abuser
right here in this newsgroup:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.health+behav/msg/79a6cbb6e90317fd?dmode=source

sheelagh
June 15th 07, 08:52 PM
On 15 Jun, 16:36, goyangi tan > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 11:19 am, sheelagh > wrote:
>
> > Reading this article seems all too common & sad as well. If only
> > everyone who abused cats were subject to international scrutiny,
> > perhaps they would think twice before doing this terrible act. It is
> > beyond my comprehension as to why anyone would feel the need to
> > perform this despicable act on defenseless kittens and cats
>
> > I'm so pleased to see that just for once, the RSPCA are not going to
> > accept this ruling lying down. It annoys me that all of their funds
> > and donations have to be used for prosecuting morons like this, but if
> > that is what it takes, then let them all be named and shamed. It is
> > exactly what they deserve.....
>
> >http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21912684-5001028,...
>
> I agree completely. Let's start by shaming an admitted cat abuser
> right here in this newsgroup:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.health+behav/msg/79a6cbb...



Oh Nick...
I am so pleased that you are finally showing a real concern for the
cats involved in Cat-Abuse cases. As you were so kind to respond, It
would be rude of me not to recognize your contribution, & I wouldn't
want that. Animal abuse is a very serious issue, so the better
promoted it is, the more people there are to take action if they
honestly feel there is a case to be answered for, & the better off
cats will be...

Thank you for highlighting the case you presented. I took particular
care to read the facts presented so that I could make a dispassionate
conclusion before responding to you. Having read it several times, I
can't find a single reason to report the person who posted this
comment. The reason for this is because there is threat there. The
facts, are clear.
I thought the others might benefit from a post all of your own. I find
it helps new members to know who you really are.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.culture.bangladesh/browse_frm/thread/bf96ac4852e1a183/9481ce04d7c6d66e?hl=en#9481ce04d7c6d66e

I thought this post was regarding a controversial case of abuse that
the rest of the members would like to share. It is good news that @
last, a Judge has recognised the rights of the cat.
THIS IS GOOD NEWS,
Not your personal drop in trolling group

Whether you like the individual concerned here, or not is irrelevant.
If any of us thought for one moment that he was in serious danger of
committing such a crime;any single one of us.


The least desirable comment, freely offered opinion that I could find,
was this:

>I broke bad! yes I did.
>I grabbed Lucy by the nap of the neck and showed her what ugly was

>My point is, it's never the cats fault, cats will take as much
advantage as you give them


All I could read here, was a man who had a bad hair day here, & he was
direct enough & honest about how he felt.. He was annoyed @ the time,
& was venting.
I think we all have moments like that.( Maybe you don't?)....

If you would care to inspect the passage again., I think you will find
that he might have felt that way, but that doesn't prove a case for
very unsavoury innuendo's, & deformation of character. He didn't say
he hurt them, merely an opinion as to why he felt that way. Can you?

Here is the proof

>My point is, it's never the cats fault, cats will take as much
>advantage as you give them
I don't see any threat involved here.


I think that he is offering an insight in the way he saw it @ the
time. I don't think it insinuates anything, & the other point is that
you don't like him. To offer this to the group simply shows you up to
be the group **** stirring Troll you really are.

This is not abuse. He didn't say he hurt them either.

S.

goyangi tan
June 15th 07, 11:16 PM
On Jun 15, 3:52 pm, sheelagh > wrote:
> The least desirable comment, freely offered opinion that I could find,
> was this:
>
> >I broke bad! yes I did.
> >I grabbed Lucy by the nap of the neck and showed her what ugly was
> >My point is, it's never the cats fault, cats will take as much


Really? Not surprising, given your short relationship with the written
word.

How about these:

"I grabbed Lucy by the nap of the neck and showed her what ugly was"

"If Lucy swipes a kitten, I hound her down with a broom
and muther****ing dare her to do it again... im the big cat around
here, I call the shots, Im in charge"

Did you intentionally omit these in deference to your *virtual*
friend, or did you not understand the words?
Here -- print this out and have someone read it aloud to you:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.health+behav/msg/79a6cbb6e90317fd?dmode=source



> All I could read here, was a man who had a bad hair day here, & he was
> direct enough & honest about how he felt.. He was annoyed @ the time,
> & was venting.
> I think we all have moments like that.( Maybe you don't?)....

Suuure. He didn't *mean* to terrorise his pets with a broom and rough
handling...'and it'll never happen again I promise honest baby'.
Drunken wife beaters use that as a defence all the time.


> If you would care to inspect the passage again., I think you will find
> that he might have felt that way, but that doesn't prove a case for
> very unsavoury innuendo's, & deformation of character. He didn't say
> he hurt them, merely an opinion as to why he felt that way. Can you?

"Deformation"?! Like John Merrick?
ROTFLMAO
Give us another, Mrs. Malaprop.


> I don't see any threat involved here.

I'm quite sure you don't -- or don't *want* to. He's your Usenet
master, after all...


> This is not abuse. He didn't say he hurt them either.

No. Of course not. I'm sure that Lucy purred with joy at being grabbed
"by the nap (sic) of the neck and
shown what ugly was" and "hound(ed) down with a broom and
muther****ing (sic) dared to do it again".
I'm sure loving cat owners grab their adult cats by the neck all the
time -- and have the deep scars to prove it.

Touchingly oblivious, as always. Obarry Wan has trained you well.

BTW, does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

sheelagh
June 16th 07, 01:12 AM
On 15 Jun, 23:16, goyangi tan > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 3:52 pm, sheelagh > wrote:
>
> > The least desirable comment, freely offered opinion that I could find,
> > was this:
>
> > >I broke bad! yes I did.
> > >I grabbed Lucy by the nap of the neck and showed her what ugly was
> > >My point is, it's never the cats fault, cats will take as much
>
> Really? Not surprising, given your short relationship with the written
> word.
>
> How about these:
>
> "I grabbed Lucy by the nap of the neck and showed her what ugly was"
>
> "If Lucy swipes a kitten, I hound her down with a broom
> and muther****ing dare her to do it again... im the big cat around
> here, I call the shots, Im in charge"
>
> Did you intentionally omit these in deference to your *virtual*
> friend, or did you not understand the words?
> Here -- print this out and have someone read it aloud to you:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.health+behav/msg/79a6cbb...
>
> > All I could read here, was a man who had a bad hair day here, & he was
> > direct enough & honest about how he felt.. He was annoyed @ the time,
> > & was venting.
> > I think we all have moments like that.( Maybe you don't?)....
>
> Suuure. He didn't *mean* to terrorise his pets with a broom and rough
> handling...'and it'll never happen again I promise honest baby'.
> Drunken wife beaters use that as a defence all the time.
>
> > If you would care to inspect the passage again., I think you will find
> > that he might have felt that way, but that doesn't prove a case for
> > very unsavoury innuendo's, & deformation of character. He didn't say
> > he hurt them, merely an opinion as to why he felt that way. Can you?
>
> "Deformation"?! Like John Merrick?
> ROTFLMAO
> Give us another, Mrs. Malaprop.
>
> > I don't see any threat involved here.
>
> I'm quite sure you don't -- or don't *want* to. He's your Usenet
> master, after all...
>
> > This is not abuse. He didn't say he hurt them either.
>
> No. Of course not. I'm sure that Lucy purred with joy at being grabbed
> "by the nap (sic) of the neck and
> shown what ugly was" and "hound(ed) down with a broom and
> muther****ing (sic) dared to do it again".
> I'm sure loving cat owners grab their adult cats by the neck all the
> time -- and have the deep scars to prove it.
>
> Touchingly oblivious, as always. Obarry Wan has trained you well.
>
> BTW, does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Oh, Believe me it has "Nothing to do with being trained"'far from it
in fact..
I would have said exactly the same thing about the vast majority of
the posters on this site. I believe they were careless words & would
be disappointed to hear otherwise, but until then I am prepared to
give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled to it


It has nothing to do with knowing Barry.
Barry is no master of mine @ all, & if you knew any better you
wouldn't be saying this.
As you so kindly point out, he used unwise words. However, I don't
think he said anything about abusing them. It is what you assume that
is the figment of your deluded imagination that motivates this hate
campaign. If you really want to know what I think, it is this:
I have no idea what motivates you towards Him & see no sport in trying
to character assassination.
You do the same to me & others here too. We just get fed up with
hearing the same old thing.
I would remind you..it is you that seems to follow the group, not the
other way around. You are the classic unoriginal troll, totally
unadulterated " Look @ MEeeeee"
-----------------------------
I designed this as a motivating subject & left it open to debate as to
whether the new laws that cover cats welfare, is it doing the job it
was designed to do..or do others feel that it is too little too late?

*I really can't be bothered to trade insults with you. I would rather
abandon the Post than do any talking with you. It is the ONLY way to
deal with a twisted mind of someone who's only "thrill is to try &
provoke a reaction. No, I know better.. I don't want to know! & I
would "RATHER" ABANDOD this post than trade anything with you. It
would make me as bad as you. Just so you understood.*
---------------------------------

bookie
June 16th 07, 01:24 AM
On 15 Jun, 23:16, goyangi tan > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 3:52 pm, sheelagh > wrote:
>
> > The least desirable comment, freely offered opinion that I could find,
> > was this:
>
> > >I broke bad! yes I did.
> > >I grabbed Lucy by the nap of the neck and showed her what ugly was
> > >My point is, it's never the cats fault, cats will take as much
>
> Really? Not surprising, given your short relationship with the written
> word.
>
> How about these:
>
> "I grabbed Lucy by the nap of the neck and showed her what ugly was"
>
> "If Lucy swipes a kitten, I hound her down with a broom
> and muther****ing dare her to do it again... im the big cat around
> here, I call the shots, Im in charge"
>
> Did you intentionally omit these in deference to your *virtual*
> friend, or did you not understand the words?
> Here -- print this out and have someone read it aloud to you:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.health+behav/msg/79a6cbb...
>
> > All I could read here, was a man who had a bad hair day here, & he was
> > direct enough & honest about how he felt.. He was annoyed @ the time,
> > & was venting.
> > I think we all have moments like that.( Maybe you don't?)....
>
> Suuure. He didn't *mean* to terrorise his pets with a broom and rough
> handling...'and it'll never happen again I promise honest baby'.
> Drunken wife beaters use that as a defence all the time.
>
> > If you would care to inspect the passage again., I think you will find
> > that he might have felt that way, but that doesn't prove a case for
> > very unsavoury innuendo's, & deformation of character. He didn't say
> > he hurt them, merely an opinion as to why he felt that way. Can you?
>
> "Deformation"?! Like John Merrick?
> ROTFLMAO
> Give us another, Mrs. Malaprop.
>
> > I don't see any threat involved here.
>
> I'm quite sure you don't -- or don't *want* to. He's your Usenet
> master, after all...
>
> > This is not abuse. He didn't say he hurt them either.
>
> No. Of course not. I'm sure that Lucy purred with joy at being grabbed
> "by the nap (sic) of the neck and
> shown what ugly was" and "hound(ed) down with a broom and
> muther****ing (sic) dared to do it again".
> I'm sure loving cat owners grab their adult cats by the neck all the
> time -- and have the deep scars to prove it.
>
> Touchingly oblivious, as always. Obarry Wan has trained you well.
>
> BTW, does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

oh **** off you ****, if you have only being able to read or write for
the past 2 years and have been virtually self taught then you too
would make errors in language and choice of words based on how they
sound. You know exactly what she meant; defamation, the fact that you
are too thick to fill in the blanks here shows up your own total lack
of intelligence.

what a tosser, I wonder how his barry-shrine is coming along

bookie
June 16th 07, 01:29 AM
On 15 Jun, 16:19, sheelagh > wrote:
> Reading this article seems all too common & sad as well. If only
> everyone who abused cats were subject to international scrutiny,
> perhaps they would think twice before doing this terrible act. It is
> beyond my comprehension as to why anyone would feel the need to
> perform this despicable act on defenseless kittens and cats
>
> I'm so pleased to see that just for once, the RSPCA are not going to
> accept this ruling lying down. It annoys me that all of their funds
> and donations have to be used for prosecuting morons like this, but if
> that is what it takes, then let them all be named and shamed. It is
> exactly what they deserve.....
>
> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21912684-5001028,...

reluctantly read the article, not nice at all, personally i think the
sentence he was given is still not enough, unless of course he is
locked in a cell with a nutcase wielding an iron bar and he receives
treatment similar to that he metted out to those poor innocent cats.
What a nasty nasty ****, what has been said time and again previously
about people who abuse and ill animals like this going on to do
similar to humans and children? even if the judge doesn't give a ****
about what happened to those poor kitties (and he should do) he
should have locked the guy away for much longer on the ground of
'protecting the public'

I agree that it is a dreadful waste of RSPCA funds

bookie

Charlie Wilkes
June 16th 07, 03:35 AM
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:24:41 -0700, bookie wrote:

> On 15 Jun, 23:16, goyangi tan > wrote:
>>
>> BTW, does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
>
> oh **** off you ****,

================================================== ===========
Pavlov indeed. Ding-a-ling-a-ling goes the bell, rat-a-tat-tat-tat go
Sheelagh and Bookie's fingers on the keyboard. For awhile there, a week
or two ago, I thought they were learning... but it was mere wishful
thinking on my part.

Charlie

goyangi tan
June 16th 07, 04:58 AM
On Jun 15, 8:24 pm, the Luton Loon > wrote:
> oh **** off you ****, if you have only being able to read or write for
> the past 2 years and have been virtually self taught then you too
> would make errors in language and choice of words based on how they
> sound. You know exactly what she meant; defamation, the fact that you
> are too thick to fill in the blanks here shows up your own total lack
> of intelligence.

Have an ice lolly and calm down. It's summer.

sheelagh
June 16th 07, 03:29 PM
On 16 Jun, 03:35, Charlie Wilkes >
wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:24:41 -0700, bookie wrote:
> > On 15 Jun, 23:16, goyangi tan > wrote:
>
> >> BTW, does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
>
> > oh **** off you ****,
>
> ================================================== ===========
> Pavlov indeed. Ding-a-ling-a-ling goes the bell, rat-a-tat-tat-tat go
> Sheelagh and Bookie's fingers on the keyboard. For awhile there, a week
> or two ago, I thought they were learning... but it was mere wishful
> thinking on my part.
>
> Charlie

That is where you are wrong Charlie.

> No, I know better.. I don't want to know! & I
>would "RATHER" ABANDOD this post than trade anything with you

I see you failed to read my last post properly.
Best Wishes.
S

Lynne
June 16th 07, 03:31 PM
on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:29:27 GMT, sheelagh >
wrote:

> That is where you are wrong Charlie.

Uh...

>> No, I know better.. I don't want to know! & I
>>would "RATHER" ABANDOD this post than trade anything with you
>
> I see you failed to read my last post properly.

The fact that you posted to the troll at all proves that Charlie is right.

--
Lynne

sheelagh
June 16th 07, 04:41 PM
On 16 Jun, 15:31, Lynne > wrote:
> on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:29:27 GMT, sheelagh >
> wrote:
>
> > That is where you are wrong Charlie.
>
> Uh...
>
> >> No, I know better.. I don't want to know! & I
> >>would "RATHER" ABANDOD this post than trade anything with you
>
> > I see you failed to read my last post properly.
>
> The fact that you posted to the troll at all proves that Charlie is right.
>
> --
> Lynne

Yeah, your right. I should have ignored it & allowed Barry to defend
himself
It has nothing to do with me in this instance.

I will take that on board & remember that next time he posts, that I
won't stand up for anyone here. Lets face it, why would I want to ?
S;o)

sheelagh
June 16th 07, 08:18 PM
On 16 Jun, 15:31, Lynne > wrote:
> on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:29:27 GMT, sheelagh >
> wrote:
>
> > That is where you are wrong Charlie.
>
> Uh...
>
> >> No, I know better.. I don't want to know! & I
> >>would "RATHER" ABANDOD this post than trade anything with you
>
> > I see you failed to read my last post properly.
>
> The fact that you posted to the troll at all proves that Charlie is right.
>
> --
> Lynne


Lynne, I re read what I wrote in that last post, & in doing so, I
realised that it sounds a bit condescending. That was not my
intention.
I was trying to say, that if there is any fault on my behalf, I
shouldn't have responded in that manner. Barry is perfectly capable of
making his own response. I should have left him free to do just that,
if he wished to.
My apologies if it sounded any other way!
S;o)

Lynne
June 16th 07, 09:44 PM
on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:18:28 GMT, sheelagh >
wrote:

> Lynne, I re read what I wrote in that last post, & in doing so, I
> realised that it sounds a bit condescending. That was not my
> intention.

Oh, hell, Sheelagh, on re-read my post sounds that way, too! I sure didn't
mean it, and I never would take a post from you that way. :)

--
Lynne

cybercat
June 16th 07, 10:03 PM
"Lynne" > wrote in message
7.142...
> on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:29:27 GMT, sheelagh >
> wrote:
>
>> That is where you are wrong Charlie.
>
> Uh...
>
>>> No, I know better.. I don't want to know! & I
>>>would "RATHER" ABANDOD this post than trade anything with you
>>
>> I see you failed to read my last post properly.
>
> The fact that you posted to the troll at all proves that Charlie is right.
>
> --

Sigh. I am so glad some of you are willing to do this.

This is one reason I chose not to have children.

Matthew
June 17th 07, 06:51 AM
"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lynne" > wrote in message
> 7.142...
>> on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:29:27 GMT, sheelagh
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is where you are wrong Charlie.
>>
>> Uh...
>>
>>>> No, I know better.. I don't want to know! & I
>>>>would "RATHER" ABANDOD this post than trade anything with you
>>>
>>> I see you failed to read my last post properly.
>>
>> The fact that you posted to the troll at all proves that Charlie is
>> right.
>>
>> --
>
> Sigh. I am so glad some of you are willing to do this.
>
> This is one reason I chose not to have children.
>
I thought it was Barry did not want any ;-)

cybercat
June 17th 07, 08:38 AM
"Matthew" > wrote
>>
>> Sigh. I am so glad some of you are willing to do this.
>>
>> This is one reason I chose not to have children.
>>
> I thought it was Barry did not want any ;-)
>
We've never discussed it. ;)

Matthew
June 17th 07, 08:46 AM
"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matthew" > wrote
>>>
>>> Sigh. I am so glad some of you are willing to do this.
>>>
>>> This is one reason I chose not to have children.
>>>
>> I thought it was Barry did not want any ;-)
>>
> We've never discussed it. ;)


It is a scary thought though :^)