Conan Hysteria and a Challenge

On 5 Jul 2005 06:43:53 GMT, (Meghan Noecker)
wrote:

On 4 Jul 2005 23:26:54 -0700, wrote:

What I *do* see, are a whole bunch of extremely compassionate and
generous people concentrating on one cat. I can imagine what could be
accomplished, and how many *other* cats could be helped if those
resources were spread out, and not concentrated on one cat.


If you get involved in a story, you want to know how it ends.

A lot of people were involved in this story, whether it was offering a
home, working on a flight, offering to donate money, calling the
shelter, or just thinking good thoughts. Some people donated to their
local shelters in honor of Conan.

But all of those people cared enough to want to know what happened to
him.

To have somebody come in (or somebody change the plans) and then go
silent on the issue is pretty frustrating.

Yep. This group has some real ****heads who know how to take the fun
out of life.

My attitude about Conan has always been, he's a standard-issue
housecat. I don't know him, but I like animals, so if no one else
wants him, I want him. If someone else wants him, that's even better.
I get sucked into enough animal trips as it is.

However, I am not as sentimental as many people. I realize Conan is
much more important to a lot of folks than he is to me, because of the
story that goes along with him. When you suggested your sister (even
though you sided with the "Charlie worries me" crowd) I thought that
was an excellent idea. That way you can use your interest in
photography and web pages to keep the story alive.

As for Queen Monica's edict -- "a merely 'good enough' home is not
good enough for us," -- it's nothing more than a pretext for two or
three surly, humorless people to take ownership of the Conan story and
effectively put an end to it. The ideal conditions for feline bliss
are not difficult to create in any home. All it takes is a loving and
devoted cat owner.

Charlie

On 2005-07-05 11:00:08 -0700, Charlie Wilkes
said:

However, I am not as sentimental as many people. I realize Conan is
much more important to a lot of folks than he is to me, because of the
story that goes along with him.

To me, and I suspect a lot of other people who have worked in rescue
for a while, there's NOTHING special about this story or this cat.
There's a lot of angst and energy being poured into this cat, while
thousands with the exact same story sit on death row.

Long distance rescues are almost always about the people and rarely
about the animal. If it was about the animal, there are ones just as
deserving locally.

b

Mary wrote:
"cmtowle" wrote in message
news:Jczye.1869760$Xk.336019@pd7tw3no...


Every moment that the squabbling goes on, every moment wasted posting
nonsense and speculation, a cat is being killed somewhere because
insufficient resources are channeled into reducing pet overpopulation
and into keep them alive until adopted. Every moment, there is an
opportunity to choose to make a difference.


Mmm hmm. We were poised to make a difference in Conan's life--
had the great new home, the means of transport, and Dan's
promise to pick him up and take him there--when you intervened
and made sure this little cat would remain homeless and caged
now for going on two weeks. You do it one cat at a time, Monica.
Your behavior in turning down several good homes for this cat
after you convinced Dan to break his promise to us is all people
need to know in order to know exactly what you are. You cannot
lie your way out of that, or spin it, or finesse it. It is a simple
fact.

Mary: As much of an emotional roller coaster as you are, having sex with
you has *got* to be wild.

"Biskybabe" wrote in message
news:2005070511040044303%biskybabe@hotmailcom...
On 2005-07-05 11:00:08 -0700, Charlie Wilkes
said:

However, I am not as sentimental as many people. I realize Conan is
much more important to a lot of folks than he is to me, because of the
story that goes along with him.

To me, and I suspect a lot of other people who have worked in rescue
for a while, there's NOTHING special about this story or this cat.
There's a lot of angst and energy being poured into this cat, while
thousands with the exact same story sit on death row.

Long distance rescues are almost always about the people and rarely
about the animal. If it was about the animal, there are ones just as
deserving locally.

b

How bleeding original. Thanks so much for your contribution.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:13:13 GMT, "cmtowle" wrote:

Every moment that the squabbling goes on, every moment wasted posting
nonsense and speculation, a cat is being killed somewhere because
insufficient resources are channeled into reducing pet overpopulation and
into keep them alive until adopted. Every moment, there is an opportunity to
choose to make a difference.

(fade to music/view of sunset)

Ok, Monica. So your point here seems to be that a critical discussion
of your M.O. is to be construed as callous indifference to suffering
animals. Is that about right?

Your entire, lengthy post is a self-serving deflection. You have
provided no meaningful information while invoking a lot of empty
rhetoric and voicing a number of complaints. Who cares if someone
lifted a couple pix from your web album? That is not relevant.

People are wondering, who picked up this cat and who is in charge of
him now, and where is he exactly? What are the standards someone must
meet to adopt him, and what selection process do you intend to follow?

If you want to put a damper on this controversy, try answering those
questions.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:13:13 GMT, "cmtowle" wrote:

Every moment that the squabbling goes on, every moment wasted posting
nonsense and speculation, a cat is being killed somewhere because
insufficient resources are channeled into reducing pet overpopulation
and into keep them alive until adopted. Every moment, there is an
opportunity to choose to make a difference.

(fade to music/view of sunset)

Ok, Monica. So your point here seems to be that a critical discussion
of your M.O. is to be construed as callous indifference to suffering
animals. Is that about right?

Your entire, lengthy post is a self-serving deflection. You have
provided no meaningful information while invoking a lot of empty
rhetoric and voicing a number of complaints. Who cares if someone
lifted a couple pix from your web album? That is not relevant.

People are wondering, who picked up this cat and who is in charge of
him now, and where is he exactly? What are the standards someone must
meet to adopt him, and what selection process do you intend to follow?

If you want to put a damper on this controversy, try answering those
questions.

Charlie

Monica owes ya'll .... nuthin' . Zip. Go pound sand. Her "group" is not
beholden on ANY level to reveal what they are doing. They got the gold ...
they make the rules.

The "controversy" will never ever be quelled by anything Monica announces.
Monica recognizes this as true.

Philip wrote:

Monica owes ya'll .... nuthin' . Zip. Go pound sand. Her "group" is not
beholden on ANY level to reveal what they are doing. They got the gold ...
they make the rules.

This is fine when it comes to mercenaries, cut throats, thugs,
assholes, etc..

but when It comes to a team, it ain't worth a damn.

whitershadeofpale wrote:
Philip wrote:

Monica owes ya'll .... nuthin' . Zip. Go pound sand. Her "group"
is not beholden on ANY level to reveal what they are doing. They got
the gold ... they make the rules.

This is fine when it comes to mercenaries, cut throats, thugs,
assholes, etc..

but when It comes to a team, it ain't worth a damn.


It also holds true for couples who find themselves battling nosey,
medlesome, gossipy, quarrelsome "friends" and in-laws. It also holds true
for those entrusted with protecting privacy and security. Outsiders are
owed nothing.

So, what team would that be?

Were the situation reversed, I guarantee you Team B would not be clamoring,
demanding, threatening to be "informed."

"Philip" wrote in message
link.net...
whitershadeofpale wrote:
Philip wrote:

Monica owes ya'll .... nuthin' . Zip. Go pound sand. Her "group"
is not beholden on ANY level to reveal what they are doing. They got
the gold ... they make the rules.

This is fine when it comes to mercenaries, cut throats, thugs,
assholes, etc..

but when It comes to a team, it ain't worth a damn.


It also holds true for couples who find themselves battling nosey,
medlesome, gossipy, quarrelsome "friends" and in-laws. It also holds
true
for those entrusted with protecting privacy and security. Outsiders are
owed nothing.

So, what team would that be?

Were the situation reversed, I guarantee you Team B would not be
clamoring,
demanding, threatening to be "informed."


You're right, Philip. I agree with you 100%. They would not be, because
Conan would already be in a wonderful, loving home you ugly, foul-smelling
old monkey. (Apologies to Nietzsche and Lou Salome ...)

Philip wrote:

Were the situation reversed, I guarantee you Team B would not be clamoring,
demanding, threatening to be "informed."

Tell you what, I'll tell what "team" that be

if you tell me about "Team B"

You go first