A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cats - misc
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How much space for a cat?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old March 4th 04, 12:57 PM
Bob Brenchley.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #162  
Old March 4th 04, 01:07 PM
Bob Brenchley.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #163  
Old March 4th 04, 01:07 PM
Bob Brenchley.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #164  
Old March 4th 04, 04:48 PM
Jacqueline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #165  
Old March 4th 04, 04:48 PM
Jacqueline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #166  
Old March 4th 04, 06:46 PM
Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #167  
Old March 4th 04, 06:46 PM
Gwenhwyfaer de Tierveil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #168  
Old March 4th 04, 06:58 PM
Bob Brenchley.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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..?
  #169  
Old March 4th 04, 06:58 PM
Bob Brenchley.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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..?
  #170  
Old March 4th 04, 07:48 PM
Jacqueline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 a 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.


....
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Human health risks w/ cat pooping in crawl space? Hank Cat health & behaviour 10 October 28th 03 12:45 PM
[catslaves] - Photo Space Yowie Cat anecdotes 11 October 2nd 03 10:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.