What Price For Kitty?

wrote in message
oups.com...
My limit is $300 every year. Any more than that and its off to the
shelter, thatis if I can't find someone else.

So after three years with no problems, your 'limit' should be $900..

Phil

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...
Absolutely not true. Black cats have some of the most expressive
faces.


I love black cat faces! It is a pity that they are hard to photograph,
maybe I should have read that "How to photograph black cats" thread. My
Bartleby has the cutest face, but when I take a picture, he just looks like
a round black head with two eyes.
I think at the shelter, the black cats just don't stand out, same with dark
torties. Orange cats always go quickly.
--
-Kelly
kelly at farringtons dot net
"Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG

"Ashley" wrote in message
...
But this is where it makes even less sense to me. I would actually prefer
a pure black cat above any other, if everything else was equal. To me,
pure black cats are things of quite stunning beauty. I don't get that
other people don't feel the same way!


Every once in a while I get someone who comes in who just loves black cats
and is drawn to them. Maybe it's a US thing.
--
-Kelly
kelly at farringtons dot net
"Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...
On 2005-02-17, Ashley penned:

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

They are pretty cool looking cats. I would love to have a black
Sphynx,
too, but will never buy a purebred. ;P

Why? Is it the "there's so many cats at shelters wanting a home"
attitude
that I've seen here quite frequently? I'm not knocking it, but AFAIC, a
cat
is a cat - if it's alive, it needs a home as much as any other, whether
it's
a purebred or moggy.

A cat is a cat and needs a home, yes.

But purebreds exist because their owners choose to breed them for certain
traits. If there were no demand for purebreds, the owners wouldn't choose
to
breed them and so there would be fewer cats total, meaning a greater
percentage would have a home.


Try explaining that to breeders. They swear they're not contributing to the
overpopulation and killing.


Phil

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...


But purebreds exist because their owners choose to breed them for certain
traits. If there were no demand for purebreds, the owners wouldn't choose
to
breed them and so there would be fewer cats total, meaning a greater
percentage would have a home.

But then again, the way breeders operate, at least here in NZ, is a model of
responsibility as far as bringing cats into the world is concerned. Many
kittens are now desexed before they are sold. Those that aren't desexed come
with a desexing contract - ie, ownership of the kitten doesn't pass to the
buyer until they have proved the kitten is desexed. Until such time, the
kitten is the breeder's property and can, theoretically, be reclaimed.

"KellyH" wrote in message
...
"Ashley" wrote in message
...
But this is where it makes even less sense to me. I would actually prefer
a pure black cat above any other, if everything else was equal. To me,
pure black cats are things of quite stunning beauty. I don't get that
other people don't feel the same way!


Every once in a while I get someone who comes in who just loves black cats
and is drawn to them. Maybe it's a US thing.

I'm not in the US.

"Mary" wrote in message
. com...

"KellyH" wrote in message
...
I wrote:
How true. I actually like to debate, and enjoy threads that get long
and
heated, while others beg for people to stop disagreeing.



L wrote:
Gee, you wouldn't be referencing any other ng would you?

Nooo... not me It happens on every ng, though.


Lynnie is talking about the sickly saccharine rec.pets.cats.anecdotes,
only surpassed in its creepy party-line sweetness by the very icky
rec.pets.cats.community where they post in baby tale. *Gag* That
is about her speed, as she can dish it out but she just can't take it.

"Profanity is the crutch of a conversational cripple." ~ Jay Alexander

I've seen people in rpca disagree with one another - even do so vehemently.
The fact that they can do so without rancor, vileness, or profanity is a
testament to their intelligence, sophistication, tolerance, and
forebearance.

I've never, *EVER* seen another newsgroup where a very long political
disagreement was carried on without a single, solitary flame, no profanity
was used, and Hitler's name was never mentioned. Everyone stuck to the
issue at hand and attacked the arguments while respecting the arguers!

Go ahead and call rpca sickly saccharine, just call us long distance please!

The ability to hold civil converse is *never* a liability!

Hugs,

CatNipped

"Meghan Noecker" wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2005 11:57:48 -0800, "-L." wrote:


And if you consider yourself
pro-choice as most childfree do

Not sure about that. I am pro-life and childfree.

Of course, I think the "pro-choice" title is rather stupid.

Other than saying that "pro-choice" as a label makes sense to me, I'm going
to leave this one alone... a HOT potato.

Cathy

Some of
the best choices are ignored by the pro-choice people. And not just
because of pregnancy.




--
Meghan & the Zoo Crew
Equine and Pet Photography
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com

"Karen" wrote in message
...
No, I didn't say that. I just know that when Grant got partially blocked,
it
probably came to just over $300. It is a *common* ailment. It's an example
of how easily one could spend 300.00 on a common kitty problem. If that is
your limit you should, indeed, find a different kind of animal companion.
Sorry, THAT I do believe. You don't say you can't afford it or are in
someway unable to afford it, you simply won't go past it. That's
ridiculous.

No matter how high a vet bill - or an accumulation of ongoing bills, when I
think what the same services would cost a human patient, I think, "Hey, it's
(the vets bill's) a bargain!"

Cathy


"Glarb" wrote in message
...
"Karen Chuplis" wrote in message
Jeez. 300? a YEAR? One blockage and that would be that.

If my cat got a "blockage," he would be euthanized. Period. $800 for
that,
you say? No way.

G

Priscilla Ballou wrote:
In article .com,
"-L." wrote:
Meghan Noecker wrote:
Not sure about that. I am pro-life and childfree.

Most childfree people are pro-choice; just Google a.s.c and you
will
see I am right.

Does that include some scientific studies which show this?

You may mean you are childless and pro-life.

Whereas I am childless and pro-choice.

I think you're stereotyping rather broadly. Being pro-choice is not
the
same as being pro-abortion or being anti-child.

I never said it was.

I am pro-child,
anti-abortion, pro-choice, and have no children.

Priscilla

You are misreading what I wrote. Many (possibly most) true childfree
are pro-choice. The childfree movement is separate from those who are
childless. Childfree means you don't have kids and never want them.
Childless means you don't have any whether or not you ever want any.

I am pro-choice, BTW, so I know exactly what it means.

-L.