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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 11:45 AM |
[catslaves] - Photo Space | Yowie | Cat anecdotes | 11 | October 2nd 03 10:13 AM |