Would you tell a lie to save a cat?

On 3/9/2015 9:59 AM, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:49:23 -0000, "Christina Websell"
wrote:

I've just advised someone on facebook to lie to get into a cat hoarders
home.
When Boyfie had his dreadful injury last year, the first thing the vet
wanted to know was "can you afford this?"
Otherwise he'd have been a gonner..
So I said yes.I kind of lied at the time. I knew it would be megabucks, but
I figured just get him operated on and saved and work the money out later.
The vet is unlikely to reverse his operation later if I cannot pay.
Boyfie was a lucky boy as lots of you contributed to his bill. We both
can't thank you all enough. He's worth every penny.




In a way I just did. I'm only allowed two cats in the place where I'm
moving, and I have three. So I lied.

I suppose you could say I lied after Persia came to live with me. I was
supposed to pay extra "pet rent" at my apartment in TN. My dog Sampson
died in 1999. I notified the manager and they stopped charging me pet
rent (although the - then - manager did say, "Just get another dog",
which certainly hit me the wrong way.) Persia came to live with me in
2001. I never did tell them I had a cat. So, I guess I sort of lied.
It's not as if it harmed anyone. She certainly didn't tear anything up
or damage the property in any way.

Jill

On 2015-03-11 6:30 PM, Lesley Madigan wrote:
When my mum was buying a place it had a "no pets" clause. She explained that she was currently looking after my brothers cat (He been sent to New York by his company for 3-4 months and this was before the pet passport scheme so if he took his cat with him then at the end of that time when he came back to the UK he would have had to put Schroedinger in quarantine for 6 months)

They told her the reason for the clause was if there was an irresponsible pet owner like say someone who let their dogs out when they went to work of a morning and left them to run around all day then they could use it. They had no problem with an indoor only cat

I was told by many people that no one took these rules seriously and no
one would even notice an extra cat. But it would only take one
disgruntled or spiteful neighbour - perhaps one who disliked or was
allergic to cats - who pointed out to the board the existence of a
second cat to put me in the legal position of having to either get rid
of one of my cats or move out. I didn't want to be vulnerable to that
sort of thing (or to lie about my cats).

That sort of thing happens, even without legal justification. There was
a local media article a little while ago about people who were trying to
force a neighbour to stop smoking even though the building rules allowed
smoking in the units (although not in the common areas) and the
neighbour had voluntarily agreed to smoke only on his balcony.

Cheryl

"Takayuki" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:49:23 -0000, "Christina Websell"
wrote:
I've just advised someone on facebook to lie to get into a cat hoarders
home.
When Boyfie had his dreadful injury last year, the first thing the vet
wanted to know was "can you afford this?"
Otherwise he'd have been a gonner..
So I said yes.I kind of lied at the time. I knew it would be megabucks,
but
I figured just get him operated on and saved and work the money out later.
The vet is unlikely to reverse his operation later if I cannot pay.
Boyfie was a lucky boy as lots of you contributed to his bill. We both
can't thank you all enough. He's worth every penny.

Only hoomins are negligent enough to leave such hazards lying around, so
we
all owe him reparations.

Hmm, I don't like that much, Tak. I don't think I am negligent with Boyfie
at all, unless having his own bedroom and eating what he wants counts as
negligent.

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On 2015-03-11 6:30 PM, Lesley Madigan wrote:
When my mum was buying a place it had a "no pets" clause. She explained
that she was currently looking after my brothers cat (He been sent to New
York by his company for 3-4 months and this was before the pet passport
scheme so if he took his cat with him then at the end of that time when
he came back to the UK he would have had to put Schroedinger in
quarantine for 6 months)

They told her the reason for the clause was if there was an irresponsible
pet owner like say someone who let their dogs out when they went to work
of a morning and left them to run around all day then they could use it.
They had no problem with an indoor only cat

I was told by many people that no one took these rules seriously and no
one would even notice an extra cat. But it would only take one disgruntled
or spiteful neighbour - perhaps one who disliked or was allergic to cats -
who pointed out to the board the existence of a second cat to put me in
the legal position of having to either get rid of one of my cats or move
out. I didn't want to be vulnerable to that sort of thing (or to lie about
my cats).

That sort of thing happens, even without legal justification. There was a
local media article a little while ago about people who were trying to
force a neighbour to stop smoking even though the building rules allowed
smoking in the units (although not in the common areas) and the neighbour
had voluntarily agreed to smoke only on his balcony.

Cheryl

so what could be worse? having a second cat or being a smoker?
Could you be thrown out for either?

On 3/18/2015 9:22 PM, Christina Websell wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On 2015-03-11 6:30 PM, Lesley Madigan wrote:
When my mum was buying a place it had a "no pets" clause. She explained
that she was currently looking after my brothers cat (He been sent to New
York by his company for 3-4 months and this was before the pet passport
scheme so if he took his cat with him then at the end of that time when
he came back to the UK he would have had to put Schroedinger in
quarantine for 6 months)

They told her the reason for the clause was if there was an irresponsible
pet owner like say someone who let their dogs out when they went to work
of a morning and left them to run around all day then they could use it.
They had no problem with an indoor only cat

I was told by many people that no one took these rules seriously and no
one would even notice an extra cat. But it would only take one disgruntled
or spiteful neighbour - perhaps one who disliked or was allergic to cats -
who pointed out to the board the existence of a second cat to put me in
the legal position of having to either get rid of one of my cats or move
out. I didn't want to be vulnerable to that sort of thing (or to lie about
my cats).

That sort of thing happens, even without legal justification. There was a
local media article a little while ago about people who were trying to
force a neighbour to stop smoking even though the building rules allowed
smoking in the units (although not in the common areas) and the neighbour
had voluntarily agreed to smoke only on his balcony.

Cheryl

so what could be worse? having a second cat or being a smoker?
Could you be thrown out for either?



In the situation Cheryl mentioned, smoking was allowed but people
pressured the neighbor not to. None of their f'ing business, IMHO,
since the neighbor was paying for the space and it was NOT against the
rules.

On the flip side, if the rules clearly state X number of pets and
someone exceeds it others complain, the management would have legal
recourse to evict them.

Jill

On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:11:21 -0400, jmcquown
wrote:

On 3/18/2015 9:22 PM, Christina Websell wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On 2015-03-11 6:30 PM, Lesley Madigan wrote:
When my mum was buying a place it had a "no pets" clause. She explained
that she was currently looking after my brothers cat (He been sent to New
York by his company for 3-4 months and this was before the pet passport
scheme so if he took his cat with him then at the end of that time when
he came back to the UK he would have had to put Schroedinger in
quarantine for 6 months)

They told her the reason for the clause was if there was an irresponsible
pet owner like say someone who let their dogs out when they went to work
of a morning and left them to run around all day then they could use it.
They had no problem with an indoor only cat

I was told by many people that no one took these rules seriously and no
one would even notice an extra cat. But it would only take one disgruntled
or spiteful neighbour - perhaps one who disliked or was allergic to cats -
who pointed out to the board the existence of a second cat to put me in
the legal position of having to either get rid of one of my cats or move
out. I didn't want to be vulnerable to that sort of thing (or to lie about
my cats).

That sort of thing happens, even without legal justification. There was a
local media article a little while ago about people who were trying to
force a neighbour to stop smoking even though the building rules allowed
smoking in the units (although not in the common areas) and the neighbour
had voluntarily agreed to smoke only on his balcony.

Cheryl

so what could be worse? having a second cat or being a smoker?
Could you be thrown out for either?



In the situation Cheryl mentioned, smoking was allowed but people
pressured the neighbor not to. None of their f'ing business, IMHO,
since the neighbor was paying for the space and it was NOT against the
rules.

On the flip side, if the rules clearly state X number of pets and
someone exceeds it others complain, the management would have legal
recourse to evict them.

Jill

Actually living next to a smoking neighbor in an apartment is very
annoying. The smoke does not just stop at the doorway; it goes out
into the hall and blows into other apartments. And it stinks.
That's undoubtably why the neighbors asked them to stop.

The only issue with cats is whether they cause an odor and that can
also be a problem.

On 2015-03-18 10:52 PM, Christina Websell wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On 2015-03-11 6:30 PM, Lesley Madigan wrote:
When my mum was buying a place it had a "no pets" clause. She explained
that she was currently looking after my brothers cat (He been sent to New
York by his company for 3-4 months and this was before the pet passport
scheme so if he took his cat with him then at the end of that time when
he came back to the UK he would have had to put Schroedinger in
quarantine for 6 months)

They told her the reason for the clause was if there was an irresponsible
pet owner like say someone who let their dogs out when they went to work
of a morning and left them to run around all day then they could use it.
They had no problem with an indoor only cat

I was told by many people that no one took these rules seriously and no
one would even notice an extra cat. But it would only take one disgruntled
or spiteful neighbour - perhaps one who disliked or was allergic to cats -
who pointed out to the board the existence of a second cat to put me in
the legal position of having to either get rid of one of my cats or move
out. I didn't want to be vulnerable to that sort of thing (or to lie about
my cats).

That sort of thing happens, even without legal justification. There was a
local media article a little while ago about people who were trying to
force a neighbour to stop smoking even though the building rules allowed
smoking in the units (although not in the common areas) and the neighbour
had voluntarily agreed to smoke only on his balcony.

Cheryl

so what could be worse? having a second cat or being a smoker?
Could you be thrown out for either?



Which is worse and what would happen would depend on the terms of the
lease or the building rules. In the case of the smoker there weren't any
rules against him smoking inside his apartment or on his balcony, but
his neighbour wanted him to stop anyway, and, not having any way to
force him to change, tried to do so by embarrassing him publicly. I
don't know what happened in the end.

Cheryl

On 3/19/2015 8:55 AM, dgk wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:11:21 -0400, jmcquown
wrote:

On 3/18/2015 9:22 PM, Christina Websell wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...

That sort of thing happens, even without legal justification. There was a
local media article a little while ago about people who were trying to
force a neighbour to stop smoking even though the building rules allowed
smoking in the units (although not in the common areas) and the neighbour
had voluntarily agreed to smoke only on his balcony.

Cheryl

so what could be worse? having a second cat or being a smoker?
Could you be thrown out for either?



In the situation Cheryl mentioned, smoking was allowed but people
pressured the neighbor not to. None of their f'ing business, IMHO,
since the neighbor was paying for the space and it was NOT against the
rules.

On the flip side, if the rules clearly state X number of pets and
someone exceeds it others complain, the management would have legal
recourse to evict them.

Jill

Actually living next to a smoking neighbor in an apartment is very
annoying. The smoke does not just stop at the doorway; it goes out
into the hall and blows into other apartments. And it stinks.
That's undoubtably why the neighbors asked them to stop.

Depends on the apartment, I guess. With one exception, none of the
apartments I lived in had enclosed hallways. Open the door, you're outside.

The only issue with cats is whether they cause an odor and that can
also be a problem.

True enough.

Jill

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On 2015-03-18 10:52 PM, Christina Websell wrote:
"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On 2015-03-11 6:30 PM, Lesley Madigan wrote:
When my mum was buying a place it had a "no pets" clause. She explained
that she was currently looking after my brothers cat (He been sent to
New
York by his company for 3-4 months and this was before the pet passport
scheme so if he took his cat with him then at the end of that time when
he came back to the UK he would have had to put Schroedinger in
quarantine for 6 months)

They told her the reason for the clause was if there was an
irresponsible
pet owner like say someone who let their dogs out when they went to
work
of a morning and left them to run around all day then they could use
it.
They had no problem with an indoor only cat

I was told by many people that no one took these rules seriously and no
one would even notice an extra cat. But it would only take one
disgruntled
or spiteful neighbour - perhaps one who disliked or was allergic to
cats -
who pointed out to the board the existence of a second cat to put me in
the legal position of having to either get rid of one of my cats or move
out. I didn't want to be vulnerable to that sort of thing (or to lie
about
my cats).

That sort of thing happens, even without legal justification. There was
a
local media article a little while ago about people who were trying to
force a neighbour to stop smoking even though the building rules allowed
smoking in the units (although not in the common areas) and the
neighbour
had voluntarily agreed to smoke only on his balcony.

Cheryl

so what could be worse? having a second cat or being a smoker?
Could you be thrown out for either?



Which is worse and what would happen would depend on the terms of the
lease or the building rules. In the case of the smoker there weren't any
rules against him smoking inside his apartment or on his balcony, but his
neighbour wanted him to stop anyway, and, not having any way to force him
to change, tried to do so by embarrassing him publicly. I don't know what
happened in the end.

Cheryl

If smoking is allowed, a neighbour has no right to subject *his* neighbour
to public embarrassment for smoking in his own apartment. IMO. What next?
I don't like how you dress??
I have my own house and I can do what I want, within reason, including
smoking. I don't smoke but surely you can smoke in your own home even if
it's rented.

I can do so much as I want here that I can keep pigs if I want to .
Haven't. That's one of the reasons why I don't want to move to a bungalow.

On 3/21/2015 2:57 AM, Joy wrote:
Smoking in a house is not going to have an effect on someone who doesn't
enter the house. Smoking in an apartment can effect those in adjoining
apartments. The way you dress may offend, but it doesn't hurt anybody.
Second hand smoke not only can hurt, it can kill.

Still, I don't think Cheryl's neighbor had the right to embarrass
someone who was not breaking any rules by smoking in his own apartment.
Lobby to change the rules.

You may be able to keep pigs where you are, but there are a good many
places where you can't keep farm animals at your home.

Farm animals aren't allowed in *most* US residential areas. My last
apartment, the small complex was located in a sort of rural area. There
were people who lived in *houses* nearby who raised a few head of cattle
and had chickens running around the yard. That was hardly common, though.

Aside from the fact that smoking is what killed my husband, I find that
a great many smokers are totally inconsiderate of others. I am very
happy that I currently know very few people who smoke. I would be very
happy if all tobacco disappeared from the world.

I'm sorry about your husband. I do smoke, and yes, I know it's not good
for me. But I am a considerate smoker. I do not smoke around people
who don't smoke. My neighbor (owned by Schwartzie) doesn't smoke. If
we go to lunch, for example, I ask her to drive and give her some money
for gasoline. Why? Because I do smoke in my car and don't want to
subject her to the smell even though I wouldn't light up with her in the
car.

Very few people get invited into my home but I do always warn them I'm a
smoker. My parents who lived here for 20+ years were smokers. So yes,
the house smells like smoke. I also open the windows as often as
temperatures permit to air things out. But I'm not stupid enough to
believe that gets the smell out of upholstery or the carpet.

I can, and do, refrain from smoking when I go out to eat. Even in
places with outdoor patios; some around here do still permit smoking if
you're seated outside. I can handle an hour or two without a cigarette.
Much more than that, though, what can I say? It's an addiction. And
not an easy one to kick.

Jill