Terrible Web Site GONE
Azion
sensible argument. You are just here to cause trouble. My guess is you
were a part of that site and not your feeling sorry for yourself because
your such a failure.
Oh well. No harm done. We still won and they, or you lost.
Robert
"Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote in message
news:39b4...@iridium.webone.com.au...
>
> "Azion" <thisa...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:LRUs5.51152$xg1.5...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> > Sally or Bob, since you are the SAME person. I hope no one else
responds
> to
> > this message because you have once again proven your ignorance.
> Censorship
> > is a government or legal body forcing a free people to read or write
only
> > what it wants them to. This action was taken by the free people for a
> free
> > choice NOT to have this site up.
> >
>
> And what about the webmasters right to have the site up? Does one right
> outweigh the other? If so, why?
>
>
> > Why should we as a free people be forced to accept such material in our
> > world?
>
> Simple fact is that you are not FORCED to accept such material, you don't
> need to go to the site, but like voyeurs all the cat lovers saw the post
and
> just *had* to go and have a look and then a whinge, what a farce.
>
> > The other thing about this, we weren't censoring truthful and
> > legitimate information. That site contained straight out blatant lies
and
> > untrue statements. This ultimately leads to more people believing
invalid
> > information which further propagates the lies.
> >
> So to the uninformed we must believe you simply because you say so?
>
>
> > If they had put up valid information with reasonable and sensible
options
> > for resolving the problem, I doubt anyone, including myself, would have
> > complained.
> >
> :-) Well, YOU might not have ....
>
>
>
>
> Bron
>
>
>
Azion
"Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote in message
news:39b4...@iridium.webone.com.au...
> What a stupid response ....
I'm sorry, it was a stupid response on my part, but I had to communicate on
your level. :-)
>
> "Azion" <thisa...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:rl2t5.52677$xg1.5...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> > Obviously you have nothing to do with cats,
>
> I own 2
Great!
>
> >freedom of speech or any other
> > sensible argument.
>
> I support freedom of speech and freedom to post on the internet as long as
> it doesn't involve it being sent to my email box.
Under normal circumstances I would agree. But this site was stating
completely false information, some of which, if read by gullable and naive
people may have gotten some innocent cats killed.
>
> >You are just here to cause trouble.
>
> Nope.
So you say.
>
> >My guess is you
> > were a part of that site and not your feeling sorry for yourself because
> > your such a failure.
> >
> Wrong again.. but then that seems to be the story of your life ...
I obviously cannot say whether you were a member of that site or not, but
then again, what do YOU know about MY LIFE?
>
>
> > Oh well. No harm done. We still won and they, or you lost.
> >
>
> Not really, in the long run you will lose as cats will be housebound or
> destroyed, it is simply a matter of time ... you are slowly going down
> kicking and screaming.... for your information (if you can comprehend), I
> never hit the site and wouldn't because to hit it would be to support it.
> Unlike you though, I just let it go silently, you gave them more support
in
> your idiocy than I did .. so I would say that you most certainly didn't
win.
Cats being housebound is fine. If that site promoted cats being kept
indoors I would have supported them. And I agree that the feral cats are a
big problem in both the U.S. and Australia. I went to the site to be sure I
knew what was happening. Since you did not, you have no argument as to
whter it should be left up or not, in it's original form. Or do you make it
a habit of butting into conversation that you have no knowledge of? If we
had all taken your pathetic week and worthless effort and NOT visited the
site to see what it was, that site would still be up. It's only because
some of us care enough about the world we live in, this includes the
internet world, we took the time to clean out some garbage, which you seem
quite willing to live in.
The site came down, got changed into a more meaningful and sensible site to
promotes it's cause. That was MY desire and it happened. I\WE WON!!. In
fact, if I were to have seen this site now and not know what it originally
stood for, I would support it all the way. But knowing what they originally
stood for make me still doubt their good faith intentions and it will be
sometime before I will say "yes" to support them.
> But then, that's what the vocal minority usually do.
Yes it is, because the remainder of people either do not have an opinion on
the subject or know that they do not have anything valid to support their
argument. So they stay smart and stay shut up, just like you should do.
Obviously you and I are going to be at odds over this. To keep bickering
back and forth will not change anything. Go ahead and post a follow up.
Call me names, insult my intellegence say whatever you want, you know, that
whole freedom of speech thingy. You can have the last word, I won't follow
up to it.
Robert
Vicki Cleaver
wrote:
:)The site came down, got changed into a more meaningful and sensible site to
:)promotes it's cause. That was MY desire and it happened. I\WE WON!!. In
:)fact, if I were to have seen this site now and not know what it originally
:)stood for, I would support it all the way. But knowing what they originally
:)stood for make me still doubt their good faith intentions and it will be
:)sometime before I will say "yes" to support them.
Thank you!!! This is just what I've been trying to get across, and up
until now have felt like I've had my head beating against a brick
wall!! At least those who disagreed with the site did complain even
if they aren't backing us up now :((
Purrs
Vicki Cleaver /\/\ /\/\ /\/\
kitt...@bigpond.com ( oo ) ( oo ) ( oo )
http://www.users.bigpond.com/kittecat =^^= =^^= =^^=
Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy
Dedicated to my precious Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie, Candi and
Lottie, the Angel kitties ...
Bron
"Azion" <thisa...@none.com> wrote in message
news:rl2t5.52677$xg1.5...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> Obviously you have nothing to do with cats,
I own 2
>freedom of speech or any other
> sensible argument.
I support freedom of speech and freedom to post on the internet as long as
it doesn't involve it being sent to my email box.
>You are just here to cause trouble.
Nope.
>My guess is you
> were a part of that site and not your feeling sorry for yourself because
> your such a failure.
>
Wrong again.. but then that seems to be the story of your life ...
> Oh well. No harm done. We still won and they, or you lost.
>
Not really, in the long run you will lose as cats will be housebound or
destroyed, it is simply a matter of time ... you are slowly going down
kicking and screaming.... for your information (if you can comprehend), I
never hit the site and wouldn't because to hit it would be to support it.
Unlike you though, I just let it go silently, you gave them more support in
your idiocy than I did .. so I would say that you most certainly didn't win.
But then, that's what the vocal minority usually do.
Bron
Ay Lass
>:)Birds only learn that the sound of a bell indicates danger if they
>:)survive their first attack by a cat with a bell.
>
>Have you ever seen a cat stalk a bird? As soon as the bell is heard
>the bird flies off. The best way to ensure that the bell is heard is
>to have two or three bells close together on an elasticised collar.
Cats can learn to walk without making the bell ring, even if there is more
than one bell.
>:)Cats don't belong in this country let's get rid of them all.
Such a simplified view. Not even worth considering because it is too hard
to implement. The damage is done, we have to learn to minimize further
damage.
>
>Well neither do dogs, mice, rats, cane toads, gold fish, rabbits,
>foxes ... the list is endless.
There are many species of rats and mice that are native to Australia, so
they really ought not to be on that list.
Alyssa
Vicki Cleaver
:)Now you are suggesting that the site would entice violence against cats, I
:)don't agree. A persons actions are their own, they have to take the
Sorry, you are wrong!!! Encouraging someone to perform an illegal act
by describing it in detail is not allowed on *most* ISP's. There are
some "pollitically incorrect" sites that specifically host these types
of things and I'm not sure how they get away with it.
Consider a paedophile who writes about how to have sex with a minor.
No pictures, just the written word. Most sensible people would object
to this just as strongly as if there had been pictures. And so they
should!! Paedophillia is an illegal activity and should not be
promoted anywhere. So is the inhuman treatment of animals.
:)responsibility and if they're so stupid (and anyone that takes action based
:)on what they read on a website they must really be stupid) then they're the
:)sort of people that will take action based on anything. There are heaps of
:)web sites out there that I would consider offensive such as the ones that
:)say the holocaust never happened. I don't visit those sites, I don't post
I have come across many sites that I considered offensive, but have
never felt the need to complain before this. Again, saying that the
holocaust didn't happen isn't illegal (BTW, I know that it did). The
difference is that this site was promoting illegal activity.
:)about them on newsgroups, I simply ignore them. That's what freedom is
:)about. The vocal minority are annoying but in the end the silent majority
:)will win.
Vocal yes, minority - don't be so sure! Not from the indications I
have had through email and on the newsgroups. Also the RSPCA didn't
seem to think it was a "minority" either! And I bet the site owner
had an inkling of the trouble he was in or he wouldn't have pulled the
site. Those who truly believe they are right don't back down.
:)Actually, my arguement becomes all the more valid. I believe in the right
:)to post what you want, it's called freedom of expression. I am against the
:)vocal minority trying to take that away with their rancid behaviour. I have
:)seen no proof on this NG that the information was incorrect, only what
Go back over my posts (if you care to, of course) and you prove me
wrong in any thing I have said. All of my facts regarding the
misinformation posted on the original site are correct. I have a
medical and animal welfare background and I know what I'm talking
about. You just try to prove me wrong.
:)people say. I KNOW cats spread disease and that they do a lot of damage to
:)the environment in various ways and that they can be pretty damn annoying.
:)I also know that I actively pick them up off the streets and take them to
:)the RSPCA/Pound on a regular basis (thus ensuring they are returned to their
:)neglectful owners DESEXED). I consider this being responsible, others may
:)consider that abusive. It's all a matter of opinion.
That is in no way abusive!! That's exactly what I would do if I found
a cat and couldn't take it in myself. You are doing that absolute
correct thing.
:)As it should be. It is weak and worthless to get all offended and jack up
:)about something that you didn't have to go and visit in the first place.
:)You guys remind me of the Fred Niles of the world who have to watch
:)pornography whilst being offended by it. Pretty stupid attitude.
:)Considering the opinions we all have it's pretty damn stupid too. Should we
:)remove all sites where the facts aren't provable? How about we burn all the
:)fictional books, because they aren't true.....
Pornography is not illegal. Offensive in lots of cases I'm sure, but
not illegal (well in most Australian states to some degree). And
fiction is a totally different matter. But this site told you how to
kill a cat - not an obviously fictional way of killing a cat, but an
actual real llife inhumane way of killing a cat. Promoting an illegal
activity.
:)Or they RESPECT anothers persons right to have and post an opinion. Why
:)should I shut up? Because *you* want me to? Are you now trying to remove
:)my right to have an opinion on the newsgroups? People like you are a real
:)threat to the rest of us because of your selfishness and narrowmindedness
:)and you would entice me to hurt cats more than any web page would.
Opinions are what the internet is all about. I am having one right
now. But if, in expressing my opinion, I intice you to perform an
illegal act then I have done something wrong. There is nothing you
have said in this letter that promoted illegal activity. Some of it
is ill-informed, but that is why I'm replying :)
Bron
Bron
"Vicki Cleaver" <kitt...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:39b4d313...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:54:44 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote:
>
> :)Now you are suggesting that the site would entice violence against cats,
I
> :)don't agree. A persons actions are their own, they have to take the
>
> Sorry, you are wrong!!!
Brrpt .. supply your proof that a web site entices violence. Who has been
enticed to violence from that site?
> Encouraging someone to perform an illegal act
> by describing it in detail is not allowed on *most* ISP's.
and policed on which ISP exactly? I don't host my sites on an ISP (except
one) so who would police them? Me?
> There are
> some "pollitically incorrect" sites that specifically host these types
> of things and I'm not sure how they get away with it.
>
Easy, they're not breaking the law. ISP's have trouble policing AUP's when
they are contradictory to the law, they open themselves to all sorts of
legal action.
> Consider a paedophile who writes about how to have sex with a minor.
> No pictures, just the written word. Most sensible people would object
> to this just as strongly as if there had been pictures. And so they
> should!! Paedophillia is an illegal activity and should not be
> promoted anywhere. So is the inhuman treatment of animals.
>
I would share your outrage, but what law has he broken? I was under the
impression that it wasn't illegal to write about things, only to PERFORM
them. But dont' get me started on paedophiles as they're up there on my
hate list somewhere about 4WD's and outside cats.
> I have come across many sites that I considered offensive, but have
> never felt the need to complain before this.
So? You did it this time.
>
> Vocal yes, minority - don't be so sure!
Oh, I am sure. Cat lovers are in the minority.
> Not from the indications I
> have had through email and on the newsgroups. Also the RSPCA didn't
> seem to think it was a "minority" either!
The RSPCA? What a joke that organisation is. Arrogant, overbearing,
toothless....
> And I bet the site owner
> had an inkling of the trouble he was in or he wouldn't have pulled the
> site. Those who truly believe they are right don't back down.
I don't know his reasons for pulling the site, however I can tell you right
now that had it been my site I would NOT have pulled it.
> Go back over my posts (if you care to, of course) and you prove me
> wrong in any thing I have said. All of my facts regarding the
> misinformation posted on the original site are correct. I have a
> medical and animal welfare background and I know what I'm talking
> about. You just try to prove me wrong.
I have seen NO proof as to whether it is misinformation or not. I've seen a
lot of whining about the site and a lot of skiting about it's removal and a
couple of people pointing out to you crows (or is that crowees :-) that an
attack like that restricts freedom of speech and opinion which has been
responded to with the expected "why don't you go away". I don't need to
prove you wrong. You made the statement, you have to prove you are right.
But before you bother with that, i'm not interested in the accuracy of the
information (and am quite happy in reality to believe you), i'm more annoyed
about the attack on personal freedom on the net, a topic that I have had to
fight long and hard for.
> Pornography is not illegal.
Ah! Nor is making incorrect statements, unless they relate to a person.
> Offensive in lots of cases I'm sure, but
> not illegal (well in most Australian states to some degree).
Exactly like a hate site?
> And
> fiction is a totally different matter. But this site told you how to
> kill a cat - not an obviously fictional way of killing a cat, but an
> actual real llife inhumane way of killing a cat. Promoting an illegal
> activity.
>
I know lots of ways to kill cats, and could tell you a few.
A non offensive way is to:
drive down the road, if a cat runs on the road do not swerve, for if you
have an accident swerving to avoid a cat you may well cause injury to a
person and you will find yourself at fault as the law is quite specific
about that fact that if you swerve to avoid a cat and have an accident it is
your fault. In fact, it is in your best interests to continue over the cat
without swerving at all, unless you have enough time to fully assess the
situation and your swerving options. Personally I don't swerve as I won't
put my kids, myself, my car or others at risk over a cat that shouldn't be
outside anyway.
Have I enticed you to kill a cat? My guess is NO.
>
> Opinions are what the internet is all about. I am having one right
> now. But if, in expressing my opinion, I intice you to perform an
> illegal act then I have done something wrong.
You would NOT have broken any australian laws. Additionally, how could you
entice me to perform an illegal act? I'm an adult, I take responsibility
for my own actions. By suggesting "enticement" you are suggesting that
people aren't responsible for their own actions. The greatest enticement I
have ever had to kill a cat would be either listening to 2 of the little
bastards mating outside my bedroom window or watching one scrape its claws
down the front bonnet of my $50K car ..... far more enticing than anything
written on a web site.
> There is nothing you
> have said in this letter that promoted illegal activity. Some of it
> is ill-informed, but that is why I'm replying :)
Ill informed in your *opinion*, I happen to not agree.
Bron
Bron
"Ay Lass" <pemb...@possumred.net.au> wrote in message
news:39b4d29d$0$26515$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Cats can learn to walk without making the bell ring, even if there is more
> than one bell.
Or they chew them off.
> Such a simplified view. Not even worth considering because it is too hard
> to implement. The damage is done, we have to learn to minimize further
> damage.
Sure it can be implemented. On a RAAF base where I lived they told everyone
to put their cats inside and they baited all the feral cats and any cats not
taken inside. Works for me.
> There are many species of rats and mice that are native to Australia, so
> they really ought not to be on that list.
>
I'm thinking that having no foxes & no mice (except the natives) would be a
GOOD thing,
Bron
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:54:44 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote:
>
>:)Now you are suggesting that the site would entice violence against cats, I
>:)don't agree. A persons actions are their own, they have to take the
>
>Sorry, you are wrong!!! Encouraging someone to perform an illegal act
>by describing it in detail is not allowed on *most* ISP's. There are
>some "pollitically incorrect" sites that specifically host these types
>of things and I'm not sure how they get away with it.
Wrong. Incitement is not in itself always a crime.
>
>Consider a paedophile who writes about how to have sex with a minor.
>No pictures, just the written word. Most sensible people would object
>to this just as strongly as if there had been pictures. And so they
>should!! Paedophillia is an illegal activity and should not be
>promoted anywhere. So is the inhuman treatment of animals.
Well now, just check your own ISP's usenet newsgroup list. I think you
will find lots of newsgroups that contain exactly the sort of thing
you think shouldn't be there.
>
[snip]
Now don't get me wrong, the site was rubbish, but that does not mean a
small minority, or even a large majority have the right to demand it
be removed.
Set up an opposing site, give your views, take their site's lies as
deal with them one by one in clear an sober comment. That will win
more people than giving this site the publicity of having it pulled.
Frankly, I think you have done the guy a big favour - think of what he
can now say "The site cat owners wanted to ban!"
--
Bob.
Looking forward to the start of the new millennium on January 1st
2001.
devon
I was just read an Australian Geo Magazine , by Dick Smith. He is talking about
getting koala hospitals going and about them dying. It says that cats pass
koala chlamydia more rapidly than through koala mating. This is due to the
koala passing it on after an infected koala escapes. It talks about how cats
frequently attack koalas, but rarely does the cat make a meal of them.
Thought you would be interested.
devon
Vicki Cleaver
very much for posting this. I shall look into it.
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 07:20:31 +1130, devon <de...@noemail.com> wrote:
:)
:)I was just read an Australian Geo Magazine , by Dick Smith. He is talking about
:)getting koala hospitals going and about them dying. It says that cats pass
:)koala chlamydia more rapidly than through koala mating. This is due to the
:)koala passing it on after an infected koala escapes. It talks about how cats
:)frequently attack koalas, but rarely does the cat make a meal of them.
:)Thought you would be interested.
Bron
>
> I am only repeating myself over and over saying that I am right and
> others are doing the same. It's very much like religion, I tend to
Should that not read "I BELIEVE I am right".... after all, you're not God
are you.
>
> There is nothing more I can say on the matter. The RSPCA was
> concerned about the site from the descriptions it received. The ISP
> told me personally that they would pull the site if the RSPCA asked
> them to. Neither thing got to happen because the site owner pulled it
> first, for whatever reason.
Perhaps he got sick of the unsolicited eMail being jammed into his inbox?
Want me to show you how annoying that can be?
>The site that he now has in it's place is
> just fine as far as I'm concerned. I don't agree with what he says,
> but he does nothing to promote hurting cats and he doesn't give false
> information so I couldn't care less what he writes. Of course, it
> would be nice if he didn't devote a whole paragraph to me on a cat
> haters site, but like I've said, I stand by what I believe in and
> behind what I've done.
Oh well, gives me something to do in my spare time :-)
>
> For those who even care about this anymore, do your own research into
> the claims made on the site. You'll see that I was right. So were
> all the other people who made complaints to the ISP and the RSPCA.
> Right won in the end and that's all we should be concerned about.
This shows just how ignorant you are. None of the posts I read on this
thread indicated a problem with your interpretation of the site, rather the
complete lack of respect for the right of the site webmaster & his right to
free speech. can't you understand that? I remember a saying from many
years ago about Germany in the war, can't remember it exactly.... when they
came for <someone> I turned a blind eye, when they came for <someone else> I
turned a blind eye ..... when they came for me there was no on left to help.
It basically means that the loss of rights isn't instantaneous, it's ERODED
and what you did was part of the erosion.
> As for sending a private email to one person in particular it was sent
> by mistake and I apologised for it. The fact that the letter written
> to him was different to the one sent later to the newsgroup was due to
> it being written some time apart. I don't believe anyone's memory is
> so excellent as to be able to write two lengthy letters verbatim.
Or they can use the "send box" to ressurect the message and save the typing.
>
> Sometimes we all have to see or read things that we don't like. But
> if we all liked the same things it would be a pretty boring world
> wouldn't it? I embrace differences of opinion, that is why I have
> kept this thread going so long. But there comes a time when it all
> has to end.
and this statement proves what a Hypocrite you are, I am speechless that you
would type this after doing what you did to the webmaster. Seems to me that
you only embrace different opinions as long as they are acceptable TO YOU.
>
> So, unless someone decides to post a blatant lie or put me down
> personally, I'll be stopping it right here. Someone's got to end this
> nonsense.
Actually, you have to because you can't "win" (as you say), because you're
arguing the wrong issue.
You say: The site was full of lies & enticement,
Gary says: He has a right to freedom of speech and opinion
Which really means you say: The site was full of stuff I didn't like
therefore it had to go
whilst Gary says: I didn't agree with the site but
respect his right to have his opinion and say
I'd say that Gary is the more responsible, mature and reasonable person in
this instance (much as I hate to admit that Gary :-)
Bron
Bron
Bron
"devon" <de...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:39B54E83...@noemail.com...
Vicki Cleaver
15:24:59 GMT, Sal...@iwantspam-not.com (Sally Jackson) purred the
following:
:)>for nature and their cat will keep them indoors like any other pet.
:)
:)That is a very crule option with a cat. One that I, and the
:)majority of cat lovers worldwide would not entertain.
In fact, Sally, I think you will find that the majority of cat owners
do keep their cats inside - at least at night. And the ones who feel
at least partly responsible for the environment choose to keep their
cats indoors all the time.
Like me ...
Vicki Cleaver and the kitties Augie, Siani, Issy and Lottie
kitt...@bigpond.com
http://www.users.bigpond.com/kittecat
On aus.tv, all posters are equal. Some are just more equal than others.
Bron
> do keep their cats inside - at least at night. And the ones who feel
> at least partly responsible for the environment choose to keep their
> cats indoors all the time.
>
Thus the cat becomes a pet rather than a pest.
Bron
devon
spay or keep keep their cats in at night.
Vicki Cleaver
20:18:35 +1130, devon <de...@noemail.com> purred the following:
:)I don't agree with your statement at all. I think the majority do no not
:)spay or keep keep their cats in at night.
I don't have statistics on keeping cats in at night, only anectodal
evicence from cat owners I know all around the world - and by far the
majority keep their cats indoors at least at night.
As for spaying, that's another issue. There are several research
papers available on the net. In Australia, one study in the early
90's showed that 72% of cats were desexed. A more recent study puts
it at closer to 90% - although even *I* doubt that that would be
entirely accurate. Even taking 72% that's still a clear majority.
Bron
>
> I don't have statistics on keeping cats in at night, only anectodal
> evicence from cat owners I know all around the world - and by far the
> majority keep their cats indoors at least at night.
bu<cou>ll<u>sh<gh>it
>
> As for spaying, that's another issue. There are several research
> papers available on the net. In Australia, one study in the early
> 90's showed that 72% of cats were desexed.
bwhahahahahahahaaaaa
>A more recent study puts
> it at closer to 90% - although even *I* doubt that that would be
> entirely accurate. Even taking 72% that's still a clear majority.
>
Credibility sinks to ZERO
Bron
Vicki Cleaver
:)
:)"Vicki Cleaver" <kitt...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
:)news:39be1fd4...@news.bigpond.com...
:)>
:)> I don't have statistics on keeping cats in at night, only anectodal
:)> evicence from cat owners I know all around the world - and by far the
:)> majority keep their cats indoors at least at night.
:)
:)bu<cou>ll<u>sh<gh>it
:)
:)>
:)> As for spaying, that's another issue. There are several research
:)> papers available on the net. In Australia, one study in the early
:)> 90's showed that 72% of cats were desexed.
:)
:)bwhahahahahahahaaaaa
:)
:)>A more recent study puts
:)> it at closer to 90% - although even *I* doubt that that would be
:)> entirely accurate. Even taking 72% that's still a clear majority.
:)>
:)
:)Credibility sinks to ZERO
Okay, smartie, you find me a research paper on the internet that I can
check that says that the majority of cats in Australia are not
desexed.
Bron
You made the statement. YOU find a RESEARCH paper that shows that 90% are
desexed because not only didn't you use a research paper, you misquoted the
page that you found.
I don't need to disprove your statement, you need to prove it.
Bron
"Vicki Cleaver" <kitt...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:39be251...@news.bigpond.com...
Vicki Cleaver
:)Actually Vicki,
:)
:)You made the statement. YOU find a RESEARCH paper that shows that 90% are
:)desexed because not only didn't you use a research paper, you misquoted the
:)page that you found.
:)
:)I don't need to disprove your statement, you need to prove it.
Actually Bron
I was responding to someone saying that the majority of cats were
outdoors. *I* didn't even bring up spaying/neutering.
But just to show you that I back up what I say with checkable research
here's a link you might like to try:
http://www.petnet.com.au/People_and_Pets/52UAMR.HTML
The following is a quote from that page:
START QUOTE
3.4 CATS AS COMPANION ANIMALS
Some features of cats
Some features of cats as companion animals are:
57% are female
90% are desexed
55% are described as 'energetic'
50% are mostly indoors but 61% are said to be inside at night
While domestic or 'moggie' is by far and away the most common type of
cat-83%-Persian is a popular pedigree
Ownership of (or by) cats is spread evenly across families and
non-partnered individuals
Reflecting this different mix of owners (to dog ownership), 31% leave
their cats without company for more than 40 hours a week (cf dogs,
only 4%).
END QUOTE
You'll note the two interesting points in this - 90% of cats are
desexed and 61% are kept inside at night. Exactly as I said, a
majority in both cases.
Now would you like to find me a relevant, checkable reference that
differs from this?
Sally Jackson
Cleaver) wrote in alt.cats:
>Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Mon, 11 Sep 2000
>15:24:59 GMT, Sal...@iwantspam-not.com (Sally Jackson) purred the
>following:
>
>:)>for nature and their cat will keep them indoors like any other pet.
>:)
>:)That is a very crule option with a cat. One that I, and the
>:)majority of cat lovers worldwide would not entertain.
>
>In fact, Sally, I think you will find that the majority of cat owners
>do keep their cats inside - at least at night. And the ones who feel
>at least partly responsible for the environment choose to keep their
>cats indoors all the time.
>
At night, yes of course. But the vast majority worldwide are
kind to their cats and let them out during the day.
>Like me ...
>
>
SallyJ.
Sally Jackson
Cleaver) wrote in alt.cats:
>Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Tue, 12 Sep 2000
>20:18:35 +1130, devon <de...@noemail.com> purred the following:
>
>:)I don't agree with your statement at all. I think the majority do no not
>:)spay or keep keep their cats in at night.
>
>I don't have statistics on keeping cats in at night, only anectodal
>evicence from cat owners I know all around the world - and by far the
>majority keep their cats indoors at least at night.
>
I would agree with that. Our cats are in by nightfall and always
have been.
>As for spaying, that's another issue. There are several research
>papers available on the net. In Australia, one study in the early
>90's showed that 72% of cats were desexed. A more recent study puts
>it at closer to 90% - although even *I* doubt that that would be
>entirely accurate. Even taking 72% that's still a clear majority.
>
I would agree with that, but it would be interesting to see at
what age the majority of cats are neutered.
SallyJ.
Bron
> Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Tue, 12 Sep 2000
> 23:47:57 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> purred the following:
>
> outdoors. *I* didn't even bring up spaying/neutering.
You made the statement and you misquoted it anyway.
> http://www.petnet.com.au/People_and_Pets/52UAMR.HTML
You've once again misinterpreted the statistics which in this case are
flawed. Surveys like this required effort and people willing to put in the
effort generally care for their pets. Therefore all you have there is a
survey of responsible people, excluding the irresponsible (majority) and the
feral or non owned cats. Specifically, it's crap and in addition to being
crap, it's missing the major factors of demographics.
>
> You'll note the two interesting points in this - 90% of cats are
> desexed and 61% are kept inside at night. Exactly as I said, a
> majority in both cases.
But you miss the major point, your survey is flawed.
>
> Now would you like to find me a relevant, checkable reference that
> differs from this?
>
I'd like you to find more realistic references. Perhaps a figure of how
many cats turn up at the RSPCA that are desexed compared to not, how many
feral cats there are in Aus compared to how many pets.
Bron
Bron
"Sally Jackson" <Sal...@iwantspam-not.com> wrote in message
news:39be51c...@news.btinternet.com...
>
> At night, yes of course. But the vast majority worldwide are
> kind to their cats and let them out during the day.
>
Where do you live? Hang on whilst I go start my car
Bron
> >
> I would agree with that. Our cats are in by nightfall and always
> have been.
After a day of digging in other peoples gardens and shitting in them,
killing any birds, frogs or other things they can find. After a couple of
jaunts up and over other peoples cars, with or without claws extended. What
a selfish person you are....
> >
> I would agree with that, but it would be interesting to see at
> what age the majority of cats are neutered.
>
Want to buy a bridge? you are not only selfish, but gullible.
Bron
Gerry
Yeah folks, only let your cats outdoors during the day. Because everyone
knows that cars and indigenous animal life always sleep during day time!
Even the herbicide your neighbours spray on their lawns only wakes at night.
Antifreeze leaking from cars always stops before morning, then continues in
the evening. Again, Sally makes me LOL everytime. Keep up the good work.
Gerry
Vicki Cleaver
08:09:25 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> purred the following:
:)I'd like you to find more realistic references. Perhaps a figure of how
:)many cats turn up at the RSPCA that are desexed compared to not, how many
:)feral cats there are in Aus compared to how many pets.
*You* are now disputing an actual reference quoted to me. I was only
quoting a reference that I found, so I am absolutely right. If you
don't believe that source, then *you* prove *me* wrong.
Vicki Cleaver
Kiki <tig...@havoc.gtf.org> purred the following:
:)I'm not refuting whether you are right or wrong, though sadly I feel you
:)are probably wrong (it's a very optimistic viewpoint you have). But I
:)found above statement so ridiculous I had to comment.
:)
:)You found a reference makes you absolutely right? Just cause you have a
The only thing I meant by "I am absolutely right" is that I said there
was a reference that said that 90% of indoor cats are desexed. Bron
said that source didn't exist and could I quote it. I did. That made
what I said absolutely right. But, that being said, even I agreed in
my original post that the figure was probably optimistic.
Now I asked that Bron *disprove* me with a web reference - a similar
survey would do.
Bron
> Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Wed, 13 Sep 2000
> 08:09:25 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> purred the following:
>
> quoting a reference that I found, so I am absolutely right. If you
> don't believe that source, then *you* prove *me* wrong.
>
>
Actually, why don't you try quoting your sources accurately?
I have disproven your "reference" adequately.
Bron
Bron
> Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 12 Sep 2000 23:52:56 GMT,
> Kiki <tig...@havoc.gtf.org> purred the following:
Wow! A clarification.
> The only thing I meant by "I am absolutely right" is that I said there
> was a reference that said that 90% of indoor cats are desexed.
since when did it include the word indoor? Now you are saying that 90% of
RESPONSIBLE cat owners desex their cats. Which begs the question about the
irresponsible cat owners, you know .. the ones that generally don't keep
their cats inside & don't dexes them.
> Bron
> said that source didn't exist and could I quote it. I did. That made
> what I said absolutely right. But, that being said, even I agreed in
> my original post that the figure was probably optimistic.
Oh ho ho ho ..... The figure is inaccurate, and relates in NO WAY to the
discussion at hand. How relevant is having indoor cats desexed anyway?
Takes 2 cats to procreate doesn't it, and generally that occurs OUTSIDE (and
usually under my bedroom window at about 3am :-( - well it did till I
caught the little bastards).
> Now I asked that Bron *disprove* me with a web reference - a similar
> survey would do.
You disproved yourself.
Bron
do you people type in the newsgroups each time? every time .. different
newsgroups
Rechelle Blair
You have done nothing of the sort. You have proven that you are not a cat
loving individual and are only here to stir up sh*t so why don't you take
your fat ass and leave Vicki the hell alone? Don't let the door hit you in
the ass on your way out!
Rechelle
Bron
"Rechelle Blair" <RG_B...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:39BF056A...@swbell.net...
> Bron,
>
> You have done nothing of the sort. You have proven that you are not a cat
> loving individual and are only here to stir up sh*t so why don't you take
> your fat ass and leave Vicki the hell alone? Don't let the door hit you
in
> the ass on your way out!
>
Ass? Ass? Obviously your as stupid as you sound. Why don't you f.ck off
and don't let the door hit your fat ARSE on the way out.
Vicki may be wrong, but she's in no way as stupid as you are.
Vicki Cleaver
2000 15:32:12 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> purred the following:
:)Actually, why don't you try quoting your sources accurately?
:)
:)I have disproven your "reference" adequately.
Just where was I inaccurate? I quoted directly from the source of a
research paper written as the result of a survey done. All research
is conducted via surveys - even David Paton from Adelaide with his
research on the numbers of native animals caught by cats discovered
this by way of surveying cat owners. Do you not believe him either?
You have disproved *nothing* - you have proved that you have *no*
facts to back up what you say. I had the facts to back up what I
said. Simple.
Vicki Cleaver
2000 15:36:31 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> purred the following:
:)since when did it include the word indoor? Now you are saying that 90% of
Unlike others on this thread, I am willing to admit when I make a
mistake. I was thinking about the stats for indoor cats at the time
that I wrote the reply. It was a slip of the finger. The research
itself clearly stated that 90% of cats were desexed - no cross
referencing on the numbers of those that were indoors or outdoors. If
you had actually read the whole post you would have seen that.
:)Oh ho ho ho ..... The figure is inaccurate, and relates in NO WAY to the
Where is your evidence that the figure is inaccurate? Quote me a site
on the internet that is a checkable reference that disputes my
findings.
But, as with most trolls on newsgroups, you have lots of opinions and
aren't willing or able to back up what you say. It then becomes a
simple thought and totally irrelevant.
I won't be answering you any more Bron, unless you can actually quote
me something I can check. You see, I am just repeating myself and the
people who read this must be getting very bored.
Go cuddle a kitty - it just might make you a nicer person.
Bron
> Whilst licking their paws in rec.pets.cats.community on Wed, 13 Sep
> 2000 15:32:12 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> purred the following:
>
> :)Actually, why don't you try quoting your sources accurately?
> :)
> :)I have disproven your "reference" adequately.
>
> Just where was I inaccurate? I quoted directly from the source of a
> research paper written as the result of a survey done. All research
> is conducted via surveys - even David Paton from Adelaide with his
> research on the numbers of native animals caught by cats discovered
> this by way of surveying cat owners. Do you not believe him either?
>
Vicki, I conceed that 90% of INSIDE cats may be desexed, however INSIDE cats
do not make up that large a proportion of the cats in Australia. This is
where your information is incorrect. I am curious as to how many cats there
are in Australia and how many of the TOTAL are desexed. Crowing over the
actions of responsible cat owners is, in itself, irresponsible because it
does not bring attention to the irresponsible people who allow their cats to
roam free rooting and breeding unchecked.
I thought my feelings on inside cats was quite plain. I don't see the
inside cat owners as being any problem at all, it's the others and the feral
cats that are the issue.
> You have disproved *nothing* - you have proved that you have *no*
> facts to back up what you say. I had the facts to back up what I
> said. Simple.
No, you have only backed up your AMENDED statement and nothing more. Good
try though.
That being said, if you keep your cats inside then you should have no
problems with us erradicating outside cats.
Bron
Bron
> Whilst licking their paws in rec.pets.cats.community on Wed, 13 Sep
> Unlike others on this thread, I am willing to admit when I make a
> mistake. I was thinking about the stats for indoor cats at the time
> that I wrote the reply. It was a slip of the finger. The research
> itself clearly stated that 90% of cats were desexed - no cross
> referencing on the numbers of those that were indoors or outdoors. If
> you had actually read the whole post you would have seen that.
:-) Being able to admit errors is an admirable trait, even in a catlover
*duck*....
> Where is your evidence that the figure is inaccurate? Quote me a site
> on the internet that is a checkable reference that disputes my
> findings.
I have my own set of "biased & inaccurate" stats for you. 100% of indoor
cats are undesexed. Prove it you say? Ok, my 2 inside cats aren't desexed,
making my figures accurate.
> But, as with most trolls on newsgroups, you have lots of opinions and
> aren't willing or able to back up what you say. It then becomes a
> simple thought and totally irrelevant.
Awww .. you called me a troll, what does that make you? The billy goat?
> I won't be answering you any more Bron,
You won't be able to help yourself :-)
> Go cuddle a kitty - it just might make you a nicer person.
Problem with your memory Vicki? I have cats, it's not the inside cats that
I have a problem with. I'd love to love cats, but every day I look at the
damage the neighbours (now deceased) cat did to my car and listen to the
(also now deceased) rooters under my bedroom window and thats enough to
remind me how annoying OP's cats are when they dont take care of them.
Bron
Sally Jackson
wrote in alt.cats:
Do you disagree with the statement "The majority of cat owners
worldwide (hint - this means all the world not just North
America) allow there cat out for at least some time during the
daylight hours"?
Because if you do, the you really are the fool you make yourself
out to be.
SallyJ.
Bob Brenchley.
How do work that out Bron?
--
Bob.
Looking forward to the start of the new millennium on January 1st
2001.
Gerry
"Alley Cat" <alle...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:39BF62AB...@virgin.net...
> Gerry wrote:
> >
> > Yeah folks, only let your cats outdoors during the day.
> > Because everyone knows that cars and indigenous animal
> > life always sleep during day time!
> > Even the herbicide your neighbours spray on their lawns
> > only wakes at night. Antifreeze leaking from cars always
> > stops before morning, then continues in the evening.
>
> them different conditions? I wouldn't presume to tell you that it's
> safe to let your cats out where you live, so why do you and so many
> others presume to tell people in other countries that they should keep
> their cats inside when you clearly have absolutely no idea what it's
> like here?
>
> For the hundred and fifty-first time (well, it feels like that), here we
> do not have "indigenous animal life" that threatens our cats.
>
> The last time I read the instructions on all the garden herbicides and
> insecticides on sale in the garden centre there wasn't a single one that
> didn't say something like "Safe for children and pets". You'd have to
> search very hard to find one that was dangerous to cats in this country,
> and then I'm not sure you'd actually find one in the end. You'd
> probably have to deliberately use some other substance that you knew was
> harmful, and I assure you that British cats are not dying in droves - or
> even singles - from this cause. One thing I know without doubt is that
> if a product had ever proved to be harmful to cats there'd have been an
> absolute uproar here and that product would have been withdrawn. The
> British simply wouldn't accept a product that harmed their pets.
>
> Anti-freeze does not lie in puddles all over our streets the way it
> appears to lie all over yours, and someone else recently posted that our
> manufacturers put something in it that stops animals wanting to drink it
> anyway. The vets at our practice tell us that they've never in their
> careers seen a cat made ill by anti-freeze, because we asked them after
> reading about it on these NGs.
>
> The fact is that where *you* live it's dangerous for a cat to be
> outside, but where millions of others live it isn't. And as much as
> most of what Bob/Sally/Frank posts is crap, what he says about this is
> true. Most people worldwide *do* allow their cats outside during the
> day and most of those cats live long, happy and healthy indoor/outdoor
> lives - because their conditions are very, very different from yours.
>
> As for the supposed environmental effect of cats? Even the bird
> societies here concede that domestic cats make little or no impression
> on the British bird population. In fact we, and most of our cat-owning
> friends, are members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
> which is one of Britain's major charities.
>
> Please, before you start lecturing someone on how dangerous it is for
> them to let their cats outside, look to see where they're posting from.
> It DOES make a big difference.
It really must be cool to live in a country with no cars, no trucks, no mean
people, no open sheds or garbage that cats can get caught in, no pesticides
or herbicides. I'd personally love to live in a country filled with cat
loving neighbours who invite them to their gardens, and a country that
relies on organic gardening, with streets filled with walking citizens
looking out for each other's cats....
err... I forgot. Which country is that again? Cause that IS different!
Gerry
Gerry
"Frank H Davis Esq." <Fr...@evenloade.totalserve.net> wrote in message
news:39bfc0c4...@news.hot-toast.com...
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:14:06 GMT, "Gerry" <gma...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sally Jackson" <Sal...@iwantspam-not.com> wrote in message
> >news:39be51c...@news.btinternet.com...
> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:14:39 GMT, kitt...@bigpond.com (Vicki
> >> Cleaver) wrote in alt.cats:
> >>
> >> >Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Mon, 11 Sep 2000
> >> >15:24:59 GMT, Sal...@iwantspam-not.com (Sally Jackson) purred the
> >> >following:
> >> >
> >> >:)>for nature and their cat will keep them indoors like any other pet.
> >> >:)
> >> >:)That is a very crule option with a cat. One that I, and the
> >> >:)majority of cat lovers worldwide would not entertain.
> >> >
> >> >In fact, Sally, I think you will find that the majority of cat owners
> >> >do keep their cats inside - at least at night. And the ones who feel
> >> >at least partly responsible for the environment choose to keep their
> >> >cats indoors all the time.
> >> >
> >>
> >> At night, yes of course. But the vast majority worldwide are
> >> kind to their cats and let them out during the day.
> >
> >Yeah folks, only let your cats outdoors during the day. Because everyone
> >knows that cars and indigenous animal life always sleep during day time!
>
> during the daytime?
>
> As for indigenous animals, do cats really make an impact on wildlife.
> In the UK we have a large cat population but I do not hear people
> going on about this animals, or that bird, is in danger of extinction
> due to cats.
Yes, cats have had an impact on mirgatory bird populations in North America.
Of course, in your country apart from house sparrows, starlings, and
pigeons... the indiginous species are already gone. No doubt partially due
to the long history of cats eating them, combined with habitat destruction.
Granted, you guys have nothing to lose anymore, except rats and starlings.
> >Even the herbicide your neighbours spray on their lawns only wakes at
night.
>
> Once diluted for application I don't think weed killer is very
> dangerous - unless drunk direct.
Oh is that right? You don't think? hmm...read the directions of any
herbicide and they ALL SAY: Keep kids and pets from walking in treated
areas for a few days after application. Hope your roaming cats read the
directions well. How about you drink some diluted 24D and tell me how *you*
feel after? Actually, just wipe your hand on treated grass and lick. I
want to watch.
> >Antifreeze leaking from cars always stops before morning, then continues
in
> >the evening.
>
> What you say may be true - but how often is a cat likely to come
> across spilt antifreeze?
Often enough for myself to lose a cat to antifreeze poisoning before I got
smart about the outside issue. Even if you only get a hose leak once a year
in your neighbourhood, a cat only dies once. If the chances of your cat
finding this once a year leak are only 1 in 5, that gives your cat an
average lifespan of 5 years. Not acceptable, nor responsible. All of these
are avoidable risks, and there is no excuse.
Gerry
Rechelle Blair
States here it's not *arse* it's plain old ass..... But that is probably too
hard for you to understand now isn't it?
<hands Bron a simple english comprehension book, hoping it'll help him>
e...@nickennui.net
someone is finally going to run over "sally"
lol
e...@nickennui.net
Bron wrote:
> Personally, I can't wait. I think we should erradicate
> all introduced pests and return the native animals.
>
> Bron
Alley Cat
>
> Yeah folks, only let your cats outdoors during the day.
> Because everyone knows that cars and indigenous animal
> life always sleep during day time!
> Even the herbicide your neighbours spray on their lawns
> only wakes at night. Antifreeze leaking from cars always
> stops before morning, then continues in the evening.
When, oh when, will people accept that different countries bring with
Alley Cat
Bron
"Bob Brenchley." <B...@Format.Publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:7obvrss53ka123l10...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:15:28 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote:
>
> How do work that out Bron?
Cats allowed outside very rarely damage their owners property. They go next
door and shit in the "cat hater/garden lover"s garden, they eat the budgie
down the street who was put out for a bit of fresh air, they then jump on a
neighbours car, with the new sloped type cars they then find themselves
sliding down the bonnet and as all good cats know, when that happens just
extend your claws and go with it - result major scratch marks down the
bonnett (want to see the pictures?)
Cat owners on the whole (with the exception of myself and a limited number
of others) are selfish and unthinking. They fail to understand that no one
else loves their cat as they do and they believe that a cat has every right
to be outside. That's simply crap. No "introduced" animal has any right to
wander the streets. I've read the cat lovers literature about how they
supposedly don't kill the wildlife. But having lived in a semi rural
environment, I can vouch for the fact that they do. Claims that they only
eat rabbits and birds make sense too, but only because they've already
pushed all the native animals out of their habitat. In Australia alone we
have made hundreds (or thousands) of native species extinct by introducing
vermin such as rabbits, mice and cats.
Don't get me wrong..... cats are great critters (especially when the
subwoofer is on :-), but they have no place outside in a country that they
are not native to. I keep mine inside or in a run. I do that no only
because they're expensive and my kids would be really upset if they became
road pizza, but also because I respect my neighbours and I respect my
environment and I LOVE the native wildlife (my current house backs onto a
reserve).
I have a blue tounged lizard living in my back yard who is at risk from the
neighbours cat. But as I am VERY STRICT on outside cats (I trap them in my
yard), he has survived for 2 years so far (and yes, he can come and go as he
pleases, I removed the bottom of some pailings). Native animals rock,
outside cats suck.
People who allow their cats to roam free are cheap and selfish, they allow
their pets to inconvenience others and they show their neighbours no
respect, they then have the nerve to whinge and whine when the neighbours
get so annoyed they take action.
That's how I worked it out.
Bron
Bron
"Frank H Davis Esq." <Fr...@evenloade.totalserve.net> wrote in message
news:39bfc0c4...@news.hot-toast.com...
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:14:06 GMT, "Gerry" <gma...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Could it be that car drivers seem to hit animals more at night than
> during the daytime?
Ah .. the headlight trick :-)
>
> As for indigenous animals, do cats really make an impact on wildlife.
> In the UK we have a large cat population but I do not hear people
> going on about this animals, or that bird, is in danger of extinction
> due to cats.
That makes sense, considering your cats have been killing wildlife for so
much longer than here, we've only had cats since we were illegally populated
in the late 1700's. You guys have such a limited population of native
wildlife left now, it's quite sad.
In Australia they are trying to clone the thylacine to re introduce it into
the "wild", it will be a natural preditor to the cat :-) But this move
towards repopulating extinct species is a good one and fully supported by
many people here. Personally, I can't wait. I think we should erradicate
andy.laubscher
Whilst in essence I agree with a little you say, but not much at all, I have
to ask you - WHY do you have a cat ? It just seems to me that you hate cats,
if I read between the lines of what you say in this NG. It also appears that
you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that what goes on outside
your property is none of your business. Nor do you seem to recognise the
fact that other people have a right to their own opinions and decisions -
you the person who chastised other people in this NG for not allowing others
freedom of expression or choice of activity !
I respect the fact that you have your own opinions ,nor can I question the
background of how you came to them as I don't know it, but as you say, I
don't have to agree with them.
In my opinion, you lose credibility by the way you contradict yourself and
show blatant hypocrisy in some of the arguments you present (see above for
discussion of one of them !), I'm sure many people subscribing to this NG
will agree.
At the same time, I have to agree with you on one point : it saddens me to
see species driven to extinction and our environment changing, in places
destroyed completely. However, we only have ourselves to blame. If our
natural history is correct, this planet was fine till we appeared (mankind
that is). If this planet ends up a toilet, it is our own doing, not the
fault of any other animal species. However, we must not forget that mother
nature could spit us off the face of the planet whenever she likes - eg. big
meteorite collision, etc. As you have said, cats were introduced to
Australia by man (one way or another - deliberately as a pet for example, or
by accident), again OUR doing. I do not dispute that something must be done,
though I am not sure what solution can be applied - what is feasible depends
on what cost is acceptable (I would like to think the best solution be
applied, but this is the real world) . You seem to have so much energy
(volume of material submitted to this NG for example). You also seem to be
inteligent and articulate. Why not channel all of these qualities into
finding a humane solution to the problems you face in Australia with cats ?
I really am curious - do you like cats ? This is an honest question as I get
the opposite impression.
Regarding the insert below :-
What do you do with the cats you say you catch ?
If you're worried about scratchmarks on paintwork of your car, either buy an
old heap of rust, a Volvo (no slopes - just slab shape), or get a decent
respray (with oven bake at end). In the UK, we get a similar problem with
kids scratching cars in much the same fashion. Nothing we can do about it
either. Does this mean we can start killing kids for this ? I think not.
For the record, all of my pets are neutered or spayed. I firmly believe this
to be the correct and responsible attitude to take. This avoids my pets
being the cause of overpopulation, etc.
Andy
Bron
"Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote in message
news:39bf...@iridium.webone.com.au...
andy.laubscher
"Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote in message
news:39bf...@iridium.webone.com.au...
Bron
"andy.laubscher" <andy.la...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:mPUv5.23774$Xe4.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Bron,
>
>WHY do you have a cat ? It just seems to me that you hate cats,
Nope, I love cats. I hate vermin. Outside cats are vermin ergo I hate
outside cats.
> if I read between the lines of what you say in this NG. It also appears
that
> you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that what goes on outside
> your property is none of your business.
Sorry, but how stupid is this statement? I should turn a blind eye to the
30% of the East Timorese population slaughtered by the Indonesians simply
because it's not on my property? Should I let a child drown in a swimming
pool because it's not in my back yard? Should I allow an old granny to be
rolled for her pension because she's not in my yard? Your statement is
absolutely ludicrous. We live within a COMMUNITY, perhaps you should have a
serious think about what that entails.
> Nor do you seem to recognise the
> fact that other people have a right to their own opinions and decisions -
Wrong again, they have the right to own a cat as long as that cats behaviour
does not impact on others. The behaviour of outside cats most certainly
impacts on others. Perhaps you cannot grasp the concept that (from Vicki's
surveys) about 70% of the population DO NOT OWN CATS and whilst there are
many reasons for that (responsibility, location etc) I would suggest the
majority would be because they don't like them.
> you the person who chastised other people in this NG for not allowing
others
> freedom of expression or choice of activity !
Oh really, everyone has a right to EXPRESS their own opinion, I have just as
much right to then interject when that opinion is stupid. Particularly in
light of some of the comments made and stands taken by the catlovers of the
newsgroup.
> I respect the fact that you have your own opinions ,nor can I question the
> background of how you came to them as I don't know it, but as you say, I
> don't have to agree with them.
As is your right.
>
> In my opinion, you lose credibility by the way you contradict yourself and
> show blatant hypocrisy in some of the arguments you present (see above for
> discussion of one of them !), I'm sure many people subscribing to this NG
> will agree.
Actually, I don't contradict myself, you simply are unable (or choose not)
to comprehend what is written. It's very basic and i'll say it again just
for you. Cats are great PETS, but once they are let outside they become
introduced vermin and vermin should be erradicated. As Vicki has clearly
stated (and I agree) people who keep their cats inside are more responsible,
they desex their cats & generally care for them as one of the family. The
fact that you cannot see the difference between the two types of cats is
sad, but expected. The fact that it's not the cats fault merely leads me to
believe they should be euthenased in a quick & painless way as whether it is
their fault or not, they still need to be erradicated.
There is no hypocrisy there nor any contradictions. I do not (and would
not) suggest people do not own cats, owning a cat means a level of
responsibility that many people are unable to commit.
> At the same time, I have to agree with you on one point : it saddens me to
> see species driven to extinction and our environment changing, in places
> destroyed completely. However, we only have ourselves to blame.
I am aware of where the blame lies, but we cannot merely sit back and say
"bugger, we brought this upon ourselves". We need to take action to rectify
the problems we have created. Great Britain has a HUGE history of "f.cking
up" their environment and other environments and the US & Australia have
continued to do so in our ignorance. We are much cleverer now than we were
50 or even 20 years ago and it is up to us to ensure that we have something
decent to give our kids, and that it not simply zoos. Take a good look at
England, do we want our countries to end up just the same as that? No real
native wildlife? Nothing but a huge list of extinct species? I most
certainly don't.
> (volume of material submitted to this NG for example). You also seem to be
> inteligent and articulate. Why not channel all of these qualities into
> finding a humane solution to the problems you face in Australia with cats
?
Oh, I am quite vocal in the community on the side of legislating against
outside cats.
>
> I really am curious - do you like cats ? This is an honest question as I
get
> the opposite impression.
If you have read the threads you will know the answer. I love cats, I hate
"vermin". I have 2 cats, they're pampered & well looked after (well, until
the subwoofer incident last night :-), they don't go outside unless they are
in their run or on a lead (and they are used to the lead) and i'm happy in
the knowledge that my cats have NEVER (ever) damaged a neighbours property,
eaten another beastie (except for whatever is put on their plate of course),
never scratched a neighbours car or shit in their garden.
> What do you do with the cats you say you catch ?
Taking a cat to the RSPCA in Australia ensures that the owner gets it back
if they bother looking, but the cat is desexed during it's stay, the pound
generally destroys the cats. Depends on my mood to where I take them. I do
know of people who fill their wheelie bins with water and slap the cats in
there, but that's a bit uncivilised for me :-( Then there are the cats
that suicide in front of the car (not a preffered option, upsets the kids)
I do NOT swerve to avoid them as that puts you and other road users at risk
and in Australia if you have an accident swerving to avoid an animal you are
100% at fault.
> If you're worried about scratchmarks on paintwork of your car, either buy
an
> old heap of rust, a Volvo (no slopes - just slab shape), or get a decent
> respray (with oven bake at end). In the UK, we get a similar problem with
> kids scratching cars in much the same fashion. Nothing we can do about it
> either. Does this mean we can start killing kids for this ? I think not.
Hmmm.. can't kill kids, there is a law against it .. but i've considered it
from time to time. But here is a question for you: Why should I pay extra
money baking the paint on my car or why should I drive a heap of shit car
because someone else is irresponsible? I do have a garage to house my car
in, but the cat incident on my car occurred during the day when I had just
parked it outside to bring my groceries in ...
>
> For the record, all of my pets are neutered or spayed. I firmly believe
this
> to be the correct and responsible attitude to take. This avoids my pets
> being the cause of overpopulation, etc.
Then the only issue that we have is the issue of inside/outside cats. I
have the same issue with dogs roaming the street by the way.
Bron
Bron
> Obviously I was wrong. Rational argument is beyond you..........
Actually that would make you wrong ... again ... 2 for 2.
Rational arguement (or discussion) is best saved for those who can
understand it.
Bron
Bron
But i'll point out the arguement was lost before i interjected, by you who
felt the need to add the ass/arse comment in the first place.
By the by... english comprehension and american in the same sentence .. now
that IS funny.
Bron
"Rechelle Blair" <RG_B...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:39C0266F...@swbell.net...
Vicki Cleaver
13:01:51 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> purred the following:
:)impacts on others. Perhaps you cannot grasp the concept that (from Vicki's
:)surveys) about 70% of the population DO NOT OWN CATS and whilst there are
So the survey that I quoted and you *rejected* is okay to use when it
suits your needs?
You're digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole Bron.
Purrs
Vicki Cleaver /\/\ /\/\ /\/\ /\/\
kitt...@bigpond.com ( oo ) ( oo ) ( oo )( oo )
http://www.users.bigpond.com/kittecat =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^=
Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie
Dedicated to my precious Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie, Candi and
Lottie, the Angel kitties ...
Bron
>
> So the survey that I quoted and you *rejected* is okay to use when it
> suits your needs?
I didn't have a better quote at the time, and that's not the reason why it
was discredited.
>
> You're digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole Bron.
All the better to bury the cats in.
Bron
Bron
<e...@nickennui.net> wrote in message news:39C05EDE...@nickennui.net...
> yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
> someone is finally going to run over "sally"
> lol
>
Erm ... I think not .. there are laws against that :-)
Bron
<e...@nickennui.net> wrote in message news:39C05F0D...@nickennui.net...
> There go the neighbors!
>
Well there is a group of Australians that wouldn't look upon that suggestion
unkindly. :-)
Bron
"Gary Meadows" <webm...@editgroup.com.au> wrote in message
news:39bf7c2...@nancy.pacific.net.au...
> It didn't work. I decided that I'm not a quitter after all.
>
> Maybe next time.
bummer :-) Hey, seeing as this is a CAT thread ... had my ID4 DVD playing
last night and the cat walked past the subwoofer just as a very dramatic
scene occurred (when the exoskeleton opened) and the subwoofer kicked in ...
cat did that upside down U thing :-) nearly pissed myself laughing ...
Bron
Sally Jackson
wrote in alt.cats:
>
>It really must be cool to live in a country with no cars, no trucks,
Oh it is, at the moment it is wonderful :-)
>no mean
>people, no open sheds or garbage that cats can get caught in, no pesticides
>or herbicides. I'd personally love to live in a country filled with cat
>loving neighbours who invite them to their gardens, and a country that
>relies on organic gardening, with streets filled with walking citizens
>looking out for each other's cats....
Indeed we do, look out for each other's cats that is.
>
>err... I forgot. Which country is that again? Cause that IS different!
I know, and we like it that way :-)
>
>Gerry
>
SallyJ.
Bob Brenchley.
<RG_B...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Bron wrote:
>
>> oooooh...
>>
>> "Rechelle Blair" <RG_B...@swbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:39BF056A...@swbell.net...
>> > Bron,
>> >
>> > You have done nothing of the sort. You have proven that you are not a cat
>> > loving individual and are only here to stir up sh*t so why don't you take
>> > your fat ass and leave Vicki the hell alone? Don't let the door hit you
>> in
>> > the ass on your way out!
>> >
>>
>> Ass? Ass? Obviously your as stupid as you sound. Why don't you f.ck off
>> and don't let the door hit your fat ARSE on the way out.
>>
>> Vicki may be wrong, but she's in no way as stupid as you are.
>You know you've lost an arguement when you critize a person's language. In the
>States here it's not *arse* it's plain old ass..... But that is probably too
>hard for you to understand now isn't it?
>
><hands Bron a simple english comprehension book, hoping it'll help him>
Oh but Rechelle, why pass on the book when we all know you haven't
read it yourself.
And the word is Arse. Get yourself a dictionary.
Oh, and as well as correcting your spelling, I took the liberty of
correcting your pathetic posting style as well.
>
>
--
Bob.
Do you really want an EXPERT? I mean, you do know that an EX is a has
been, and a SPERT is a drip under pressure....
Bob Brenchley.
>
>"Bob Brenchley." <B...@Format.Publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
>news:7obvrss53ka123l10...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:15:28 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote:
>>
>> How do work that out Bron?
>
>Cats allowed outside very rarely damage their owners property. They go next
>door and shit in the "cat hater/garden lover"s garden, they eat the budgie
>down the street who was put out for a bit of fresh air, they then jump on a
>neighbours car, with the new sloped type cars they then find themselves
>sliding down the bonnet and as all good cats know, when that happens just
>extend your claws and go with it - result major scratch marks down the
>bonnett (want to see the pictures?)
>
>Cat owners on the whole (with the exception of myself and a limited number
>of others) are selfish and unthinking. They fail to understand that no one
>else loves their cat as they do and they believe that a cat has every right
>to be outside. That's simply crap. No "introduced" animal has any right to
>wander the streets.
Mmmmm. So dogs are OK but cats are not?
>I've read the cat lovers literature about how they
>supposedly don't kill the wildlife. But having lived in a semi rural
>environment, I can vouch for the fact that they do.
This is true, of course they kill some native life. But that is nature
in the raw. I don't see a way round it, the cat is a fact of nature.
Australian wildlife will, no doubt, suffer for a while, but then will
bounce back as it has done for millions of years.
>Claims that they only
>eat rabbits and birds make sense too, but only because they've already
>pushed all the native animals out of their habitat. In Australia alone we
>have made hundreds (or thousands) of native species extinct by introducing
>vermin such as rabbits, mice and cats.
Very true, mad did introduce all three. But the odds are that within a
million years (give or take a million) an animal - I can't guess at
which one, would have moved in and done the same damage. It is how
nature works. A species evolves and grows in one small area then, like
wildfire, spreads and dramatically alters the ecosystem over a
relatively small period of time. We have seen it since the dawn of
evolution. OK, this time man has acted as a catalyst, but nature is
running its course.
>
>Don't get me wrong..... cats are great critters (especially when the
>subwoofer is on :-), but they have no place outside in a country that they
>are not native to. I keep mine inside or in a run. I do that no only
>because they're expensive and my kids would be really upset if they became
>road pizza, but also because I respect my neighbours and I respect my
>environment and I LOVE the native wildlife (my current house backs onto a
>reserve).
Ah. Now, close to a reserve I agree some action is required. Please do
not think that I advocate that all native wildlife should be wiped
out. In fact things do work in reverse. The wallaby is now well
established in some parts of the UK, and of course several of our (now
native) animals were also introduced by man (rabbit, several deer,
mink, just to name a few). No, we have to keep at least a viable group
of any wild animal going - because one day it may be its turn.
>
>I have a blue tounged lizard living in my back yard who is at risk from the
>neighbours cat. But as I am VERY STRICT on outside cats (I trap them in my
>yard), he has survived for 2 years so far (and yes, he can come and go as he
>pleases, I removed the bottom of some pailings). Native animals rock,
>outside cats suck.
>
>People who allow their cats to roam free are cheap and selfish, they allow
>their pets to inconvenience others and they show their neighbours no
>respect, they then have the nerve to whinge and whine when the neighbours
>get so annoyed they take action.
I don't think that is true. Certainly not in the UK.
>
>That's how I worked it out.
Actually, my questions was related to your use of the term "gullible"?
But many thanks for your well thought out reply.
>
--
Bob.
After the government takes enough to balance the budget, the taxpayer
has the job of budgeting the balance.
M
"Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote in message
news:39bf...@iridium.webone.com.au...
>
M
"Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote in message
news:39c0...@iridium.webone.com.au...
Gerry
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:56:31 GMT, "Gerry" <gma...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Frank H Davis Esq." <Fr...@evenloade.totalserve.net> wrote in message
> >news:39bfc0c4...@news.hot-toast.com...
> >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:14:06 GMT, "Gerry" <gma...@home.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> OLD STUFF SNIPPED
> >> Once diluted for application I don't think weed killer is very
> >> dangerous - unless drunk direct.
> >
> >Oh is that right? You don't think? hmm...read the directions of any
> >herbicide and they ALL SAY: Keep kids and pets from walking in treated
> >areas for a few days after application.
>
>
> Just looked, neither of the week killer I have say anything like that.
Interesting. In our country we have laws not only regarding the labelling
of herbicidal/pesticide products, but when applications are applied in
populated areas, little signs must be placed on the edge of your property
that warn people that herbicide or pesticides are in use. All popular
herbicides (including the less lethal kill alls, such as organic-phospherous
Monsato kind), as well as the "weed&feed" killex (Organo-cloride 2-4D based
fertilizers) tell us not to allow the chemical to come into contact with
skin while being applied. Because of the dangers inherent in using these
substances to people, wildlife, and the environment, the use of such
chemicals are now very controversial in North America and has spawned
something called the "Organic Movement" and tougher laws regarding when and
where such chemicals can be used.
> >Hope your roaming cats read the
> >directions well. How about you drink some diluted 24D and tell me how
*you*
> >feel after? Actually, just wipe your hand on treated grass and lick. I
> >want to watch.
>
> What is 24D? Any relation to WD40?
2-4D is the most popular organo-chloride based chemical used in a variety of
selective herbicides, including such brand names as "Killex", and the
"weed&feeds" that commonly obtainable in local garden centeres. 2-4D and
related chemicals generally have no effective replacement when it comes to
selective weed killers. It's use is very controversial for reasons beyond
the subject of this newsgroup, but let us say that it's use in parks and
other public areas was banned long ago. For this reason the "grass" in our
public parks is a rather diverse mix of grass, dandilions, and other weeds
:-)
> >> >Antifreeze leaking from cars always stops before morning, then
continues
> >in
> >> >the evening.
> >>
> >> What you say may be true - but how often is a cat likely to come
> >> across spilt antifreeze?
> >
> >Often enough for myself to lose a cat to antifreeze poisoning before I
got
> >smart about the outside issue. Even if you only get a hose leak once a
year
> >in your neighbourhood, a cat only dies once. If the chances of your cat
> >finding this once a year leak are only 1 in 5, that gives your cat an
> >average lifespan of 5 years. Not acceptable, nor responsible. All of
these
> >are avoidable risks, and there is no excuse.
>
> I will reverse that. Not acceptable, nor responsible, to drive/own a
> car that represents a danger to wildlife.
I like that. Now your gaining a tiny glimmer of environmental consciousness
(suggest you read about herbicide and pesticide use and dangers however). I
encourage you to spread the word, since cars are not only a danger to cats,
but will impact the quality of life or survival of the future generations of
all life. While we *both* work on convincing people of your excellent
suggestion, we both realize that it is much easier to protect our cat
tomorrow morning than it is to eliminate the use of cars tomorrow morning.
We control and protect what we can today, while working to influence others
our entire lives. But again, I agree good suggestion. Hope the planet read
that last statement of yours. My great-great grandchildren to be born will
thank you.
Gerry
Bron
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:08:46 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote:
>
> Mmmmm. So dogs are OK but cats are not?
Nope, never said that. Laws here say very specifically that dogs need to
remain secured within your yard.
> This is true, of course they kill some native life. But that is nature
> in the raw. I don't see a way round it, the cat is a fact of nature.
> Australian wildlife will, no doubt, suffer for a while, but then will
> bounce back as it has done for millions of years.
I don't agree, eventually the native wildlife will become extinct because
they cannot protect them against these introduced vermin. Then we will find
that the catlovers take "selfish sally's" view of "who cares, they're gone
anyway". Do you want to hand your kids a longer list of extinct native
animals for which WE are responsible? Wouldn't it be better to take the bad
decisions now and protect the future?
> I don't think that is true. Certainly not in the UK.
One of the biggest neighbourhood complaints in Australia appears to be about
the baiting of cats.
Bron
Bron
"M" <girdl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8prnai$ett$1...@coset.qualcomm.com...
> Like an arsehole like you would care...
>
Like a dickhead like you would know
e...@nickennui.net
They have taken to listing themselves as head of the
household on my income tax return.
Bron wrote:
>
>
> Thus the cat becomes a pet rather than a pest.
>
> Bron
andy.laubscher
"Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote in message
>
> "andy.laubscher" <andy.la...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:mPUv5.23774$Xe4.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > Bron,
> >
> >WHY do you have a cat ? It just seems to me that you hate cats,
>
> Nope, I love cats. I hate vermin. Outside cats are vermin ergo I hate
> outside cats.
Don't cats help to keep rodents at bay ? Especially ones that are killing
rodents for FOOD ?
>
> > if I read between the lines of what you say in this NG. It also appears
> that
> > you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that what goes on outside
> > your property is none of your business.
>
> Sorry, but how stupid is this statement? I should turn a blind eye to the
> 30% of the East Timorese population slaughtered by the Indonesians simply
> because it's not on my property?
So what exactly did you do about it then ?
Should I let a child drown in a swimming
> pool because it's not in my back yard? Should I allow an old granny to be
> rolled for her pension because she's not in my yard? Your statement is
> absolutely ludicrous. We live within a COMMUNITY, perhaps you should have
a
> serious think about what that entails.
OK - I agree with the examples you present here. I would step in too and do
something. However, in the context of this NG, I was inferring you don't
have the right to tell a neighbour what to do with their cat. It is up to
them.
>
> > Nor do you seem to recognise the
> > fact that other people have a right to their own opinions and
decisions -
>
> Wrong again, they have the right to own a cat as long as that cats
behaviour
> does not impact on others. The behaviour of outside cats most certainly
> impacts on others. Perhaps you cannot grasp the concept that (from
Vicki's
> surveys) about 70% of the population DO NOT OWN CATS and whilst there are
> many reasons for that (responsibility, location etc) I would suggest the
> majority would be because they don't like them.
Do you have any proof of this ? If so, please show this NG some ! Otherwise,
please avoid generalisations.
>
> > you the person who chastised other people in this NG for not allowing
> others
> > freedom of expression or choice of activity !
>
> Oh really, everyone has a right to EXPRESS their own opinion, I have just
as
> much right to then interject when that opinion (IN YOUR OPINION !)
is stupid. Particularly in
> light of some of the comments made and stands taken by the catlovers of
the
> newsgroup.
I was refering to you reaming out Vikki Cleaver about the website that is
the subject of this thread. She has a right to her own opinion. So do I. You
do too. So does the guy running the website. If you post a website, expect
people to comment, especially if it's contentious or offensive material. So
he got loads of hassle perhaps. Maybe that tells you that the website was
found to be offensive by people visiting it ?
Perhaps we should eradicate ourselves too, as by your definitions (we kill
wildlife too, accidentally, unintentionally, or even deliberately) we are
vermin as well ? You are also forgetting the fact that cats perform an
important rodent control function, for instance on farms in the UK. To do
this, they must be outside.
Again you contradict yourself here Bron. There are at least 4 types of cats
:-
1 domestic pets that we don't let out.
2 domestic pets that we do let out (and scratch your car paintwork as you
said in another posting to this NG).
3 semi wild cats - feral (<--- spelt correctly I hope !), that live close to
man, but not with.
4 genuinely wild cats, indigenous to the countries they populate.
However, as I said before, I agree something has to be done. I agree also,
if possible the method employed should be humane. However, this is the real
world, and cost will override everything.
>
> There is no hypocrisy there nor any contradictions. I do not (and would
> not) suggest people do not own cats, owning a cat means a level of
> responsibility that many people are unable to commit.
>
Unfortunately, I agree with you too here. It is a sad fact that rescue
centres in this country deal with so many unwanted pets. I have 9 cats and a
dog. All bar one cat are rescues. Because the cats are so nervous due to the
way they were treated, I keep them in. They have a run too - plenty of room,
heaters, the works, but they don't go out. They also come in the house some
nights of the week. The fact that they don't go out is due to predominantly
the above, but I wouldn't be happy if they went out and hunted stuff - that
is one aspect of cat behaviour I don't like. Also, they'd probably go in the
next door neighbours garden (which is really well kept), which could cause
me some friction there too.
>
> > At the same time, I have to agree with you on one point : it saddens me
to
> > see species driven to extinction and our environment changing, in places
> > destroyed completely. However, we only have ourselves to blame.
>
> I am aware of where the blame lies, but we cannot merely sit back and say
> "bugger, we brought this upon ourselves". We need to take action to
rectify
> the problems we have created. Great Britain has a HUGE history of
"f.cking
> up" their environment and other environments and the US & Australia have
> continued to do so in our ignorance. We are much cleverer now than we
were
> 50 or even 20 years ago and it is up to us to ensure that we have
something
> decent to give our kids, and that it not simply zoos. Take a good look at
> England, do we want our countries to end up just the same as that? No
real
> native wildlife? Nothing but a huge list of extinct species? I most
> certainly don't.
Agree here too. Unfortunately the pro-hunting lobby seems hellbent on
exterminating yet more of our wildlife......
>
> > (volume of material submitted to this NG for example). You also seem to
be
> > inteligent and articulate. Why not channel all of these qualities into
> > finding a humane solution to the problems you face in Australia with
cats
> ?
I reiterate the point above. The reply you posted here shows this. Your
discussion here is interesting food for thought. As I say, find the
solutions ! Assess the magnitude of the problem. Devise the best solution.
Put your energy into that ?
>
> Oh, I am quite vocal in the community on the side of legislating against
> outside cats.
But do YOU actually do anything other than say there's a problem ? The worst
people are the ones who say there's a problem incessantly, but can't think
of ways to deal with it.
OK - but try to take them to the RSPCA to give them the best chance from now
on ?
>
> > If you're worried about scratchmarks on paintwork of your car, either
buy
> an
> > old heap of rust, a Volvo (no slopes - just slab shape)
Sorry about that one ! I couldn't resist a dig at Volvos......
, or get a decent
> > respray (with oven bake at end). In the UK, we get a similar problem
with
> > kids scratching cars in much the same fashion. Nothing we can do about
it
> > either. Does this mean we can start killing kids for this ? I think not.
>
> Hmmm.. can't kill kids, there is a law against it .. but i've considered
it
> from time to time. But here is a question for you: Why should I pay
extra
> money baking the paint on my car or why should I drive a heap of shit car
> because someone else is irresponsible? I do have a garage to house my car
> in, but the cat incident on my car occurred during the day when I had just
> parked it outside to bring my groceries in ...
>
Do you get annoyed with birds making a mess of your car, or stonechips too ?
Car paint is pretty tough if baked on properly. Unfortunately, a lot of
respray jobs don't bake the paint properly, it remains fairly soft and
scratches really easily. This is what I was driving at about the respray -
not to get one !
> >
> > For the record, all of my pets are neutered or spayed. I firmly believe
> this
> > to be the correct and responsible attitude to take. This avoids my pets
> > being the cause of overpopulation, etc.
>
> Then the only issue that we have is the issue of inside/outside cats. I
> have the same issue with dogs roaming the street by the way.
I don't like stray dogs either. I like dogs, and whereever I can I catch
them and get them to rescue centres. My dog Mutley is a rescue. This is how
I found her ! Believe it or not, one of my cats is less nervous of Mutley
than she is of me. The cats and dog even sleep together sometimes.
The stray dog problem is also down to people not facing the responsibilities
they take on.
So as you say, we do seem to agree on a lot of things, but not everything !
>
>
>
>
> Bron
>
>
>
Until the next postings
Andy
Bob Brenchley.
>
>"Bob Brenchley." <B...@Format.Publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
>news:4492ssgcfnh0s4uo6...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:08:46 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote:
>>
>> Mmmmm. So dogs are OK but cats are not?
>
>Nope, never said that. Laws here say very specifically that dogs need to
>remain secured within your yard.
>
>> This is true, of course they kill some native life. But that is nature
>> in the raw. I don't see a way round it, the cat is a fact of nature.
>> Australian wildlife will, no doubt, suffer for a while, but then will
>> bounce back as it has done for millions of years.
>
>I don't agree, eventually the native wildlife will become extinct because
>they cannot protect them against these introduced vermin. Then we will find
>that the catlovers take "selfish sally's" view of "who cares, they're gone
>anyway". Do you want to hand your kids a longer list of extinct native
>animals for which WE are responsible? Wouldn't it be better to take the bad
>decisions now and protect the future?
If it was possible to turn back the clock and not introduce an animal
I would do it. However, that is not an option available.
So, while ensuring that a species does not become extinct, and that
may mean the only place is in zoos, then yes I am in favour of
allowing nature to take its course.
>
>
>> I don't think that is true. Certainly not in the UK.
>
>One of the biggest neighbourhood complaints in Australia appears to be about
>the baiting of cats.
What do you mean by that?
--
Bob.
Looking forward to the start of the new millennium on January 1st
2001.
e...@nickennui.net
No one's pet has the right to do as they please on
another person's property unless the property owner is OK with it.
Responsible pet owners don't allow it.
Its not necessary to the animal in the least.
Its proper with both dogs and cats, they are entitled
to their owners property, nothing else.
We only have a couple here who think otherwise, and
their "logic" is not logic, or right.
Which of course never stops them from endless posts,
which in turn never changes the truth.
Gerry
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 02:25:01 GMT, "Gerry" <gma...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Frank H Davis Esq." <Fr...@evenloade.totalserve.net> wrote in message
> >news:39c1d80...@news.hot-toast.com...
> >> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:56:31 GMT, "Gerry" <gma...@home.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Frank H Davis Esq." <Fr...@evenloade.totalserve.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:39bfc0c4...@news.hot-toast.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:14:06 GMT, "Gerry" <gma...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Sally Jackson" <Sal...@iwantspam-not.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> >> OLD STUFF SNIPPED
> >
> >> >> Once diluted for application I don't think weed killer is very
> >> >> dangerous - unless drunk direct.
> >> >
> >> >Oh is that right? You don't think? hmm...read the directions of any
> >> >herbicide and they ALL SAY: Keep kids and pets from walking in
treated
> >> >areas for a few days after application.
> >>
> >>
> >> Just looked, neither of the week killer I have say anything like that.
> >
> >Interesting. In our country we have laws not only regarding the
labelling
> >of herbicidal/pesticide products, but when applications are applied in
> >populated areas, little signs must be placed on the edge of your property
> >that warn people that herbicide or pesticides are in use.
>
> countries followed suit.
>
> But putting signs up!!! I don't think they allow us to have chemicals
> that bad.
>
> >All popular
> >herbicides (including the less lethal kill alls, such as
organic-phospherous
> >Monsato kind), as well as the "weed&feed" killex (Organo-cloride 2-4D
based
> >fertilizers) tell us not to allow the chemical to come into contact with
> >skin while being applied.
>
>
> >Because of the dangers inherent in using these
> >substances to people, wildlife, and the environment, the use of such
> >chemicals are now very controversial in North America and has spawned
> >something called the "Organic Movement" and tougher laws regarding when
and
> >where such chemicals can be used.
>
> or exposure to concentrated stuff. But the only advise on ours is
> usually to keep the bottle (the concentrated form) away from children
> and pets. Once diluted the only warning it not to spray near ponds.
> >
> >> >Hope your roaming cats read the
> >> >directions well. How about you drink some diluted 24D and tell me how
> >*you*
> >> >feel after? Actually, just wipe your hand on treated grass and lick.
I
> >> >want to watch.
> >>
> >> What is 24D? Any relation to WD40?
> >
> >2-4D is the most popular organo-chloride based chemical used in a variety
of
> >selective herbicides, including such brand names as "Killex", and the
> >"weed&feeds" that commonly obtainable in local garden centeres. 2-4D and
> >related chemicals generally have no effective replacement when it comes
to
> >selective weed killers. It's use is very controversial for reasons
beyond
> >the subject of this newsgroup, but let us say that it's use in parks and
> >other public areas was banned long ago. For this reason the "grass" in
our
> >public parks is a rather diverse mix of grass, dandilions, and other
weeds
> >:-)
>
> wearing and requires less maintenance.
> you elect to treat your cats like babies and keep them in to safeguard
> them then that is all you do - safeguard the cat. But if you take
> action against the dangers that can befall a cat, you also save a lot
> of other wildlife.
>
> >While we *both* work on convincing people of your excellent
> >suggestion, we both realize that it is much easier to protect our cat
> >tomorrow morning than it is to eliminate the use of cars tomorrow
morning.
>
> and keep them in. Sorry, but I am not prepared to see one of God's
> most wonderful creatures deprived of its right to go out. You may be,
> if you are I feel very sorry for your cats, but that is your choice.
>
> However, please remember that this is not necessarily what is best for
> the cat.
>
> >We control and protect what we can today, while working to influence
others
> >our entire lives. But again, I agree good suggestion. Hope the planet
read
> >that last statement of yours. My great-great grandchildren to be born
will
> >thank you.
>
> children who may never exist.
Ditto for you Bob/Sally/Frank, or whatever you are. I was much like you
once. But after losing 3 cats to various hazards outdoors, I've changed.
Yes it took every cat I ever cared for to die before I suddenly decided I
wanted my #4-#6 cats I currently own to live. And after seeing how content,
happy, and playful they are, I can say that I've made the right decision and
have also avoided the neurotic behaviour associated with domesticated
animals dealing with tramatic and hurtful situations commonly experienced
while being allowed to roam.
Yes, I feel strongly about this issue because I cared for those 3 cats and
it hurt me dearly when each died. So shove your insulting and degrading
comments up the end that's responsible for the dribble that comes out of
your keyboard. You show absolutely so knowledge of anything and therefor
have zero credibility except among your "uk singles" friends. You apply
chemical herbicides to your property without even knowing what chemicals are
in there. You are a fool for that alone.
Oh, and don't bother. One more obvious troller into the killfile.
Gerry
Bob Brenchley.
>Ditto for you Bob/Sally/Frank, or whatever you are. I was much like you
>once. But after losing 3 cats to various hazards outdoors, I've changed.
>Yes it took every cat I ever cared for to die before I suddenly decided I
>wanted my #4-#6 cats I currently own to live. And after seeing how content,
>happy, and playful they are, I can say that I've made the right decision and
>have also avoided the neurotic behaviour associated with domesticated
>animals dealing with tramatic and hurtful situations commonly experienced
>while being allowed to roam.
>
>Yes, I feel strongly about this issue because I cared for those 3 cats and
>it hurt me dearly when each died. So shove your insulting and degrading
>comments up the end that's responsible for the dribble that comes out of
>your keyboard. You show absolutely so knowledge of anything and therefor
>have zero credibility except among your "uk singles" friends. You apply
>chemical herbicides to your property without even knowing what chemicals are
>in there. You are a fool for that alone.
>
>Oh, and don't bother. One more obvious troller into the killfile.
>
>Gerry
>
>
Don't you think we care about our cats?
The difference is that we want to give out cats one aspect of life
that is VERY important to their physical and metal well being - access
to the outside world.
Of course having a cat die is very sad, but we all go through it at
some time - they don't live forever. And I would rather a cat had 15
years of good life than 17/18 years locked inside.
If you can't let your cats out because of excessive dangers (something
that I think rarely exists except in the imagination of the owner)
then really you have to say to yourself "should I keep cats".
A cat is a wild animal that has condescended to live with us, we have
NO right to deprive it of the freedom to go outside. This is something
that I, and most people outside North America seem to be able to
understand - why is it so difficult for you?
--
Bob.
If it ain't broken... fix it 'til it is.
Vicki Cleaver
09:09:18 +0100, Bob Brenchley. <B...@Format.Publications.ukf.net>
purred the following:
:)Don't you think we care about our cats?
I know that you do care about cats, Bob. You really do believe that
you are doing the right thing by the cat. But are you doing the right
thing by the environment and other people as well?
:)The difference is that we want to give out cats one aspect of life
:)that is VERY important to their physical and metal well being - access
:)to the outside world.
Where do you get the idea that being outside is *very* important to
cats? I have never seen a cat that suffered any ill effect whatsoever
form being inside, but I have seen *many* suffer by being outdoors.
Tell me in what way do cats suffer by being indoors only?
:)If you can't let your cats out because of excessive dangers (something
:)that I think rarely exists except in the imagination of the owner)
:)then really you have to say to yourself "should I keep cats".
If that were the case, very few people in Australia would be able to
keep cats. The damage to the environment here is enourmous and some
of it is directly attributable to cats (although not as much as
cat-haters would like to make out).
:)A cat is a wild animal that has condescended to live with us, we have
:)NO right to deprive it of the freedom to go outside. This is something
:)that I, and most people outside North America seem to be able to
:)understand - why is it so difficult for you?
In Australia cat lovers are definately leaning towards keeping their
animals indoors - at least at night. This is not a North American
phenomenem.
You've given no good reason to let cats go out, but many people have
given extremely valid reasons to keep them inside. While it's fine to
have an opinion, it's always better to be able to actually back it up.
tasoch
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Sat, 16 Sep 2000
>09:09:18 +0100, Bob Brenchley. <B...@Format.Publications.ukf.net>
>purred the following:
>
>:)Don't you think we care about our cats?
>
>I know that you do care about cats, Bob. You really do believe that
>you are doing the right thing by the cat. But are you doing the right
>thing by the environment and other people as well?
Yes, because I believe that a cat is part of the environment and that
is does little harm to it.
>
>:)The difference is that we want to give out cats one aspect of life
>:)that is VERY important to their physical and metal well being - access
>:)to the outside world.
>
>Where do you get the idea that being outside is *very* important to
>cats? I have never seen a cat that suffered any ill effect whatsoever
>form being inside, but I have seen *many* suffer by being outdoors.
>Tell me in what way do cats suffer by being indoors only?
Just spend one week reading the cat newsgroups. The number of cases of
disturbed cats (if the groups are remotely representative) is
astronomical. Cats are still wild animals, very friendly wild animals
I'll agree - but they need their freedom to go outside.
>
>:)If you can't let your cats out because of excessive dangers (something
>:)that I think rarely exists except in the imagination of the owner)
>:)then really you have to say to yourself "should I keep cats".
>
>If that were the case, very few people in Australia would be able to
>keep cats. The damage to the environment here is enourmous and some
>of it is directly attributable to cats (although not as much as
>cat-haters would like to make out).
That may be true. It is not for me to say what happens in Australia -
except to point out that the Australian cat is not different from the
UK cat or the American cat of the Russian cat - and they ALL need
access to the outdoors.
>
>:)A cat is a wild animal that has condescended to live with us, we have
>:)NO right to deprive it of the freedom to go outside. This is something
>:)that I, and most people outside North America seem to be able to
>:)understand - why is it so difficult for you?
>
>In Australia cat lovers are definately leaning towards keeping their
>animals indoors - at least at night. This is not a North American
>phenomenem.
At night yes, the old Fred Flintstone job of putting the cat out for
the night is now the reverse.
>
>You've given no good reason to let cats go out, but many people have
>given extremely valid reasons to keep them inside. While it's fine to
>have an opinion, it's always better to be able to actually back it up.
The is only one real reason. A cat is an animal, animals did not have
carpet lined cages until man built them. The fact that the average cat
is easier to cage than some other animals does not make it right to
cage it.
>
>
>Purrs
Returned :)
--
Bob.
Seen on a sign in the window of a restaurant: "Life is short, start
with dessert."
Vicki Cleaver
Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.felines on Sat, 16 Sep 2000
12:54:42 +0100, Bob Brenchley. <B...@Format.Publications.ukf.net>
purred the following:
:)On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:41:14 GMT, kitt...@bigpond.com (Vicki Cleaver)
:)wrote:
:)
:)>Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Sat, 16 Sep 2000
:)>09:09:18 +0100, Bob Brenchley. <B...@Format.Publications.ukf.net>
:)>purred the following:
:)>
:)>:)Don't you think we care about our cats?
:)>
:)>I know that you do care about cats, Bob. You really do believe that
:)>you are doing the right thing by the cat. But are you doing the right
:)>thing by the environment and other people as well?
:)
:)Yes, because I believe that a cat is part of the environment and that
:)is does little harm to it.
:)>
:)>:)The difference is that we want to give out cats one aspect of life
:)>:)that is VERY important to their physical and metal well being - access
:)>:)to the outside world.
:)>
:)>Where do you get the idea that being outside is *very* important to
:)>cats? I have never seen a cat that suffered any ill effect whatsoever
:)>form being inside, but I have seen *many* suffer by being outdoors.
:)>Tell me in what way do cats suffer by being indoors only?
:)
:)Just spend one week reading the cat newsgroups. The number of cases of
:)disturbed cats (if the groups are remotely representative) is
:)astronomical. Cats are still wild animals, very friendly wild animals
:)I'll agree - but they need their freedom to go outside.
:)>
:)>:)If you can't let your cats out because of excessive dangers (something
:)>:)that I think rarely exists except in the imagination of the owner)
:)>:)then really you have to say to yourself "should I keep cats".
:)>
:)>If that were the case, very few people in Australia would be able to
:)>keep cats. The damage to the environment here is enourmous and some
:)>of it is directly attributable to cats (although not as much as
:)>cat-haters would like to make out).
:)
:)That may be true. It is not for me to say what happens in Australia -
:)except to point out that the Australian cat is not different from the
:)UK cat or the American cat of the Russian cat - and they ALL need
:)access to the outdoors.
:)>
:)>:)A cat is a wild animal that has condescended to live with us, we have
:)>:)NO right to deprive it of the freedom to go outside. This is something
:)>:)that I, and most people outside North America seem to be able to
:)>:)understand - why is it so difficult for you?
:)>
:)>In Australia cat lovers are definately leaning towards keeping their
:)>animals indoors - at least at night. This is not a North American
:)>phenomenem.
:)
:)At night yes, the old Fred Flintstone job of putting the cat out for
:)the night is now the reverse.
:)>
:)>You've given no good reason to let cats go out, but many people have
:)>given extremely valid reasons to keep them inside. While it's fine to
:)>have an opinion, it's always better to be able to actually back it up.
:)
:)The is only one real reason. A cat is an animal, animals did not have
:)carpet lined cages until man built them. The fact that the average cat
:)is easier to cage than some other animals does not make it right to
:)cage it.
:)>
:)>
:)>Purrs
:)
:)Returned :)
:)
:)--
:)Bob.
:)
:)Seen on a sign in the window of a restaurant: "Life is short, start
:)with dessert."
Vicki Cleaver and the kitties Augie, Siani, Issy and Lottie
kitt...@bigpond.com
http://www.users.bigpond.com/kittecat
On aus.tv, all posters are equal. Some are just more equal than others.
Mike
"Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote in message
news:39c0...@iridium.webone.com.au...
>
Bron
>
> But that didn't stop us letting the other cats out because, well, cats
> do go outside.
>
Actually, selfish cats owners LET cat's outside (they don't just "go
outside")
>
> Are you addressing me? I don't understand you.
>
Yes, many of us have trouble understanding why your right to dump your cats
outside outweighs my right to not have a cat shit in my garden, jump on my
car, eat my bird (etc).
>
>
> I apply weedkiller to my garden at times, yes, so do most people. I
> follow the instructions, knowing that they have been written with
> people far less intelligent than me in mind. I do not need to know
> what chemicals are contained therein, that is a job for the people of
> formulate the weedkiller and for those that license it for sale to the
> general public.
Subtle dig at others? Seems to me that pesticide is something to ADD to the
garden in the hope that the neighbours cat does a "one off" visit.
> The last escape route someone unable to use their brain. Sorry Gerry,
> if you admit defeat that easy then you are not worth any effort.
> >
The fact that some driver suffered because he ran over your cat should be a
wake up call to you, but I guess nothing gets past your selfishness.
Bron
Surfer!
>
>"Frank H Davis Esq." <Fr...@evenloade.totalserve.net> wrote in message
>news:39c3968...@news.hot-toast.com...
>>
>> But that didn't stop us letting the other cats out because, well, cats
>> do go outside.
>>
>Actually, selfish cats owners LET cat's outside (they don't just "go
>outside")
>
I got a kitten a few weeks back. He sat crying with his nose plastered
to the front door until I started letting him out. He and the others
run in to use the litter tray, then back out to carry on playing. I
also got a rescue last December who behaved in a similar manner with the
addition of puddles until I let him out.
Both of these cats would be very unhappy to be kept inside for good. I
try to get them in a night because of the traffic dangers, and three of
them know how to go round the back of the house (it's a mid-terrace) to
get in via the cat flap, so they can come in whenever they want. They
can't get out that way.
So what do you suggest those of us with cats which are determined to go
out and unhappy if they can't, do?
--
Surfer!
Vicki Cleaver
12:17:18 +0100, Surfer! <nevis...@nospam.demon.co.uk> purred the
following:
:)So what do you suggest those of us with cats which are determined to go
:)out and unhappy if they can't, do?
If you want your cats to be truly safe, you persist. I have a cat,
Lottie, that does just this. She sits at the door (screened)
sometimes and meows. But she gets over it! It only goes on for a few
minutes and then she's back cuddling on my lap. And I'm safe in the
knowledge that she's not going to get run over, poisoned or hurt the
environment.
As I've said *many* times before on this ng, I've never seen an
indoors only cat that suffered any long term damage from being
indoors. But I've seen many outdoors cats killed or badly hurt by
being outdoors.
I know what I'd rather.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Sun, 17 Sep 2000
>12:17:18 +0100, Surfer! <nevis...@nospam.demon.co.uk> purred the
>following:
>
>:)So what do you suggest those of us with cats which are determined to go
>:)out and unhappy if they can't, do?
>
>If you want your cats to be truly safe, you persist.
But no cat, even an indoor only cats, is truly safe. There are as many
dangers in the home as there are outside.
>I have a cat,
>Lottie, that does just this. She sits at the door (screened)
>sometimes and meows. But she gets over it! It only goes on for a few
>minutes and then she's back cuddling on my lap. And I'm safe in the
>knowledge that she's not going to get run over, poisoned or hurt the
>environment.
But what about all the dangers in the house?
>
>As I've said *many* times before on this ng, I've never seen an
>indoors only cat that suffered any long term damage from being
>indoors. But I've seen many outdoors cats killed or badly hurt by
>being outdoors.
And as I've said before, a lot of the cats whose owners post here
looking for help with behaviour problems would not have developed
those problems if the had been let out.
>
>I know what I'd rather.
You are, I'm sad to say, putting your interests before that of your
cat's.
--
Bob.
"Remember there's no I in team" ... (but there is a M and an E).
Sally Jackson
(Frank H Davis Esq.) wrote in alt.cats:
>On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:37:28 GMT, Sal...@iwantspam-not.com (Sally
>Jackson) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:47:24 GMT, "Gerry" <gma...@home.com>
>>wrote in alt.cats:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>It really must be cool to live in a country with no cars, no trucks,
>>
>>Oh it is, at the moment it is wonderful :-)
>
>No it's not, I can't get to work - but on the other hand :-)
What are you doing with the other hand - stroking a cat I
hope....
SallyJ.
Vicki Cleaver
purred the following:
:)But no cat, even an indoor only cats, is truly safe. There are as many
:)dangers in the home as there are outside.
Absolutely!! But we cut the danger down immeasurably by not giving
them access to outdoors dangers as well.
:)But what about all the dangers in the house?
And I might add, even with dangers in the home, I've never heard of a
cat actually being killed by being in the house. Sure there are the
dangers of poisoning (which can be averted by putting chemicals up
high) and electrocution (also avoidable if you care for your
electrics) (to name just two). Most of these dangers, however, can be
minimised if not eliminated. Oh, and then there's the little matter
of chocolate :))
:)And as I've said before, a lot of the cats whose owners post here
:)looking for help with behaviour problems would not have developed
:)those problems if the had been let out.
The only behavioural problems that I've heard of are furniture
scratching and spraying. Unfortunately both things can occur even if
the cat is let out for some of the time. So letting them outdoors
doesn't garuantee that it won't happen.
:)You are, I'm sad to say, putting your interests before that of your
:)cat's.
In fact, I'm putting the life of the cat before my own interests. It
would be *so* much easier for me to let them out every morning and not
let them back in until dinner time. No litter trays to clean for one!
But instead I keep them inside for *their* protection.
Guess this is another case of agree to disagree. But I think it's
good for others in this ng to see both sides of the argument before
making a decision.
newsgroup
with a terrible website?
Joan Koster
>
> Can we change the subject title since it doesn't seem to have anything to do
> with a terrible website?
> >
Could we also stop crossposting it to every newsgroup related to cats -
unless you want to have the cats start replying in meowchat?
Thank you.
(posted individually to the relevant newsgroups to try to get the
threads contained)
Bron
"Surfer!" <nevis...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lQk8eHB+...@nevis-view.demon.co.uk...
>
> I got a kitten a few weeks back. He sat crying with his nose plastered
> to the front door until I started letting him out. He and the others
> run in to use the litter tray, then back out to carry on playing. I
> also got a rescue last December who behaved in a similar manner with the
> addition of puddles until I let him out.
Yeah, my kids would love to rollerblade down the centre of the road too, but
I don't let them.
>
> Both of these cats would be very unhappy to be kept inside for good. I
> try to get them in a night because of the traffic dangers, and three of
> them know how to go round the back of the house (it's a mid-terrace) to
> get in via the cat flap, so they can come in whenever they want. They
> can't get out that way.
Awwwww... diddums ... so the native wildlife suffers because you can't be
"cruel to be kind".
>
> So what do you suggest those of us with cats which are determined to go
> out and unhappy if they can't, do?
>
Then build them a cat run. You are simply making excuses to justify your
selfish behaviour.
Bron
Bron
Yeah, you might step on their tail.
>
> But what about all the dangers in the house?
Oh dear ... how far do we go on this?
>
> And as I've said before, a lot of the cats whose owners post here
> looking for help with behaviour problems would not have developed
> those problems if the had been let out.
Excuses, excuses, excuses .. if they "need" to go outside their cheap owners
should spring for a cat run.
> You are, I'm sad to say, putting your interests before that of your
> cat's.
>
Fer F.cks sake ... how stupid is that statement? In this case, she is
actually putting the good of the community first, and is willing to
entertain alternative and responsible solutions to issues.
Regardless of what you are trying to infer, more cats die outside then
inside. In fact, i've never run a cat over inside .. can't say the same
about outside .........
Bron
Bob Brenchley.
>
>"Bob Brenchley." <B...@Format.Publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
>news:dnj9sso4i6gov14oj...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:45:23 GMT, kitt...@bigpond.com (Vicki Cleaver)
>>
>> But no cat, even an indoor only cats, is truly safe. There are as many
>> dangers in the home as there are outside.
>
>Yeah, you might step on their tail.
I have the scratches at the moment to prove that does happen :(
>
>>
>> But what about all the dangers in the house?
>
>Oh dear ... how far do we go on this?
As far as you would like.
>
>>
>> And as I've said before, a lot of the cats whose owners post here
>> looking for help with behaviour problems would not have developed
>> those problems if the had been let out.
>
>Excuses, excuses, excuses .. if they "need" to go outside their cheap owners
>should spring for a cat run.
One cage for another?
>
>
>
>> You are, I'm sad to say, putting your interests before that of your
>> cat's.
>>
>
>Fer F.cks sake ... how stupid is that statement? In this case, she is
>actually putting the good of the community first, and is willing to
>entertain alternative and responsible solutions to issues.
Good of the community? Oh sure. The good of the cats should come
first.
>
>Regardless of what you are trying to infer, more cats die outside then
>inside. In fact, i've never run a cat over inside .. can't say the same
>about outside .........
No, untrue. More cats die inside than out.
Bob Brenchley.
>
>"Surfer!" <nevis...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:lQk8eHB+...@nevis-view.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> I got a kitten a few weeks back. He sat crying with his nose plastered
>> to the front door until I started letting him out. He and the others
>> run in to use the litter tray, then back out to carry on playing. I
>> also got a rescue last December who behaved in a similar manner with the
>> addition of puddles until I let him out.
>
>Yeah, my kids would love to rollerblade down the centre of the road too, but
>I don't let them.
>
>>
>> Both of these cats would be very unhappy to be kept inside for good. I
>> try to get them in a night because of the traffic dangers, and three of
>> them know how to go round the back of the house (it's a mid-terrace) to
>> get in via the cat flap, so they can come in whenever they want. They
>> can't get out that way.
>
>Awwwww... diddums ... so the native wildlife suffers because you can't be
>"cruel to be kind".
Yes it is cruel to keep a cat caged. Maybe we should gather up all the
other wildlife and cage them, then we can let our cats roam in peace
{yes, that was meant to be a sarcastic remark.}
>
>>
>> So what do you suggest those of us with cats which are determined to go
>> out and unhappy if they can't, do?
>>
>
>Then build them a cat run. You are simply making excuses to justify your
>selfish behaviour.
>
As I said, one cage replaces another - not an option in my mine.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>Whilst licking their paws in alt.animals.cat on Sun, 17 Sep 2000
>15:05:54 +0100, Bob Brenchley. <B...@Format.Publications.ukf.net>
>purred the following:
>
>:)But no cat, even an indoor only cats, is truly safe. There are as many
>:)dangers in the home as there are outside.
>
>Absolutely!! But we cut the danger down immeasurably by not giving
>them access to outdoors dangers as well.
Do we? The can only be subject to one set of dangers at a time. That
is like saying I will go by ship on holiday this year because that way
I will not subject myself to the dangers of flying.
>
>:)But what about all the dangers in the house?
>
>And I might add, even with dangers in the home, I've never heard of a
>cat actually being killed by being in the house. Sure there are the
>dangers of poisoning (which can be averted by putting chemicals up
>high)
Cats climb.
> and electrocution (also avoidable if you care for your electrics)
>(to name just two).
A real problem with a bored cat.
> Most of these dangers, however, can be
>minimised if not eliminated. Oh, and then there's the little matter
>of chocolate :))
But so can the dangers outside - most of which are actually very small
anyway.
>
>:)And as I've said before, a lot of the cats whose owners post here
>:)looking for help with behaviour problems would not have developed
>:)those problems if the had been let out.
>
>The only behavioural problems that I've heard of are furniture
>scratching and spraying. Unfortunately both things can occur even if
>the cat is let out for some of the time. So letting them outdoors
>doesn't garuantee that it won't happen.
As I've said before, I've never know an indoor/outdoor cat spray in
the house unless there was something very seriously wrong with it
either mentally of physically. The odd scratching I expect, people who
don't do not know cats. But that it reduced greatly by allowing a cat
outside.
>
>:)You are, I'm sad to say, putting your interests before that of your
>:)cat's.
>
>In fact, I'm putting the life of the cat before my own interests. It
>would be *so* much easier for me to let them out every morning and not
>let them back in until dinner time. No litter trays to clean for one!
>But instead I keep them inside for *their* protection.
No, I still believe you are putting your interests ahead of the cats.
The cat needs to go out, it is part of its nature. Sadly a small
percentage of cats let out will die, your choice is to avoid the
heartbreak that such a death brings to you by depriving your cats of
an essential part of their lives.
>
>Guess this is another case of agree to disagree. But I think it's
>good for others in this ng to see both sides of the argument before
>making a decision.
>
Very true. Air the facts, give reasons, balance the argument, then
like any good debate it is up to the listeners(readers) to make their
choice.
Alley Cat
> It really must be cool to live in a country with no cars,
> no trucks, no mean people, no open sheds or garbage that
> cats can get caught in, no pesticides or herbicides.
Your response could be considered a good deal more relevant had you
made any effort at all to absorb anything I said previously, or had you
made any attempt to understand countries and cultures other than your
own. Or maybe it's just that you don't read the English language? It
has to be one or the other as you're simply repeating your erroneous
arguments which have already been answered.
I, thankfully, live in a country where cats are the most popular pet
and where deliberate animal abuse is rare. Most ill-treated animals
here suffer because of ignorance rather than design.
We have motor vehicles, of course, but the majority of those who have
cats make a considerable effort to live in areas away from traffic to
ensure the cats' safety. The number of cats that die on the roads is
very, very small. There isn't a road of any kind outside our house so
the only way ours will die on the "road" is to be trampelled to death by
the pedestrians who walk along the grass or the path.
Our sheds and our garbage simply don't harbour the perils that American
sheds and garbage seem to - proven by the fact that our millions of
outdoor cats don't die in sheds and rubbish tips on a daily basis the
way you claim yours would. I'm older than I like to admit and I've
never heard or read of anyone finding a dead cat in their shed or
amongst their rubbish.
The pesticides and herbicides are made safe for children and pets by
our manufacturers, as I said very clearly before. Try reading someone's
reply before bursting into print again next time because you make
yourself look very foolish.
> I'd personally love to live in a country filled with
> cat loving neighbours who invite them to their gardens,
Then come and live here. There are now getting on for 20 cats in the
surrounding houses here (more seem to arrive every day!), and every
neighbour welcomes ours not only into their gardens, but into their
houses, as we welcome theirs. It's been the same everywhere I've ever
lived.
All my life my cats have visited the neighbours. Ours regularly come
home smelling of other people's perfumes around their necks where
they've been kissed and cuddled. Our neighbour opposite tells me that
her little girl adores our cats visiting, and plays with them in their
garden every day. The only reason they're not invited inside is because
the husband suffers from asthma.
FACT: The British love cats.
FACT: Those British who don't actually love cats don't harm them.
Anyone who abuses an animal here finishes up in court very, very swiftly
- if they aren't lynched before they get there. And believe me, in this
country, animal abusers get seriously physically attacked - ask Mary
Chipperfield. This is a country that takes animal abuse very, very
seriously indeed. To the average citizen, abusing an animal is a
heinous crime.
> and a country that relies on organic gardening,
No need for organic gardening when the pesticides are "Safe for children
and pets" - guaranteed by the manufacturers. You *do* understand what
"safe" means don't you?
> with streets filled with walking citizens looking out for
> each other's cats....
Ah yes, Americans have no legs, I forgot :-) Well here people walk.
Millions of them. Every day. On every British street.
Walk along a British street and not be greeted by a cat every hundred
yards? The cat is such an integral part of British life that it's
inconceivable.
> err... I forgot. Which country is that again? Cause that IS
> different!
Well, it's different from the US certainly, but then only a seriously
narrow-minded and bigoted person would suggest that all countries are
the same. Only someone extremely unintelligent would suggest that
because it's one way in the US it must the the same all over the world.
An intelligent person would acknowledge that all countries and cultures
are different, and that there's no way we can understand and judge
another's country by our own.
I've been lucky enough to travel quite extensively. I know the US and
Canada quite well and I wouldn't for a second suggest that anything you
say about it is wrong. Your societies are very different from ours in
many respects, and one of the major respects - thank God - is the way we
treat our animals.
If I lived in many parts of the US I wouldn't want to let my cats out
either, because all the dangers you cite are there. What *you* need to
learn is that much of the rest of the world is very, very different, and
to try to tell those of us in other countries that you know our
countries better than we do - when quite clearly you haven't a clue - is
the height of arrogance. It also makes you look utterly ridiculous
because the labels you're trying to stick on us are so way off it's
laughable.
Alley Cat
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gerry
assuming Sally incarnate? *jeez*
But I have been to the uk. It's just like it is on TV. As crowded, cooky,
and dangerous as any country. In fact, much more so than ours just because
of your drastically higher population density. And your pesticides and
herbicides are not save for human ingestion in diluted or undiluted form,
just like the pesticides and herbicides sold to any other country. However,
I do participate in organic gardening clubs with many uk citizens who are
more environmentally conscious than their neighbours (who they complain
about constantly). And I suspect that you are in the minority in the uk,
having to walk to your house miles from a road. This is a much more common
situation in my country.
Gerry
"Alley Cat" <alle...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:8q65a2$k2u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Gerry
USA... perhaps you should learn to check the "address" of my posts. This
will help prevent you from looking like a much bigger fool than myself.
And from my visits to both countries, there are certainly simularities that
our country does not share with either of you. However, it seems you want
to get into a country bashing and "mine is better than yours" argument. I
suggest the following newsgroup:
"alt.idiots.who.think.their.country.is.the.best". Enjoy yourself there :-)
Gerry
"Gerry" <gma...@home.com> wrote in message
news:JXyx5.25180$m7.11...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
Alley Cat
> Aw yes Alley Cat, and before you go about insulting me in
> relation to the USA... perhaps you should learn to check the
> "address" of my posts.
The address of your posts shows that you are either in the USA, Canada,
Australia, Netherlands or Japan. My news server is down for
maintenance, so I'm having to read through Deja which means the source
code of your post isn't available. If it was I'd know exactly which
country you're posting from. It matters little which it is because they
all mean that you are not British, and are not, therefore, in a position
to tell those of us who are that you know our country better than we do.
The only one of those countries I haven't visited is Japan, and I
wouldn't presume to tell Americans, Canadians, Australians or the Dutch
that what they're saying about their own countries isn't true. Nor
would I presume to tell them whether it's safe for their cats to go
outside where they live. Because I don't know where they live, just as
you have absolutely no idea where anybody on this NG lives.
You could tell me you live in Amsterdam and I still wouldn't be able to
judge. I know Amsterdam well, and I know that parts of it would be
dangerous for outside cats and parts wouldn't. The fact is I'm not in a
position to judge others' situations, and neither are you.
> it seems you want to get into a country bashing and "mine
> is better than yours" argument.
Which yet again shows that you have not made any attempt to research
what you're talking about or the person you're talking to. It also
shows that you don't read what people are saying to you. Had you done
so you would know that I have continually posted to the effect that as
our countries are so different, none of us is in a position to judge the
other.
The only thing I do say, and many non-Brits here would agree - and have
in the past agreed during various discussions - is that the British
treat their animals better than many other nations treat theirs. We're
not perfect, but we're a damned sight better than most. That's not
country-bashing, it's a fact.
It has been you, not me, who has been so anxious to make snap (and
unfounded) judgements about other countries. It has been you, not me,
who has bashed anybody who tells you that because of the environment
where they live they make a different choice from the one you make as to
the care of their cats. It has been you, not me, who has point blank
refused to accept that other people are better able to judge what is and
isn't safe for their cats when you don't have the faintest idea of the
environment those people are living in. It has been you, not me, who
has consistently tried to impose your belief and viewpoint on anyone who
disagrees with you, regardless of your lack of information about their
situation.
It has been me who has posted when other Brits have made anti-American,
anti-anything-not-British remarks, trying to get them to accept that
they are also not in a position to judge.
Have I once told you that you should let your cats outside? Have I once
told you that the choices you make for them are wrong? No, and nor
would I, because while I have visited your country I have no knowledge
of your personal environment and would not presume to be so arrogant.
You, on the other hand, presume to be so arrogant to everyone who
happens to disagree with your completely unfounded viewpoint.
Alley Cat
> I have been to the uk.
You've been here? You've visited? Oh well, that makes all the
difference, if you've visited that makes you an expert. You've visited
the whole of the UK then? From John O'Groats to Lands End? Both sides
of the Pennines? The Orkneys? The Isle of Man? The Scillies? Yep, a
visitor. Well that surely does mean that you know this country so much
better than we Brits do then.
I've been to Sydney and Perth, does that mean I know Australia? Does
that mean I can judge the situation of anyone who lives anywhere in Oz?
> It's just like it is on TV.
> As crowded, cooky,
Ah yes, if it's on TV it must be true. Parts of the UK are crowded,
certainly. Parts of it are wide open empty spaces. But then surely you
should know that, as you've visited?
> and dangerous as any country.
Dangerous? I guess that depends on your definition. Are you talking
about pollution? Disease control? Road traffic fatalities/accidents?
Murders? Danger is a relative term and needs to be more tightly defined
before we can be compared with other countries. It would depend on
which area you're referring to as to whether Britain's more or less
"dangerous" than other individual countries.
Certainly I have no worries walking along the streets where I live at
night. Certainly our crime rate is low compared with many other
countries. Even our police, when appearing on television to try to
catch certain criminals, tell us not to worry and not to get things out
of proportion because it's really a pretty safe country.
Let me ask you a question. How dangerous is it in St Mary's? For me
and for my cats?
> In fact, much more so than ours just because
> of your drastically higher population density.
Like any country we have densely populated areas. We also have sparsely
populated areas. Your problem with logical debate is that you assume
that everyone you're talking to is living in precisely the situation you
envisage, when in fact you have absolutely no idea.
You haven't a clue whether my cats are going outside in the middle of
London or on the remotest island of the Hebrides. You don't know
whether the neighbours I refer to are in an apartment block in Docklands
or whether they're crofters. Yet you cast your judgement regardless.
Not the most intelligent way to attempt to conduct an adult discussion.
> And your pesticides and herbicides are ....
> just like the pesticides and herbicides sold to any other
> country.
Clearly they're not, as you tell us that your cats would die instantly
if they came into contact with them, yet ours don't. Because they're
"Safe for children and animals", but we've already established that you
don't understand what that means.
> I do participate in organic gardening clubs with many uk
> citizens who are more environmentally conscious than their
> neighbours (who they complain about constantly).
By which you prove my point and disprove your own. I'm sure some people
don't like cats and I'm sure they complain. But they're not going
round killing other people's cats are they? They're complaining. The
Brits are actually extremely good at complaining, we do it a lot.
And that's all people do here where cats are concerned, which is why
it's safe for cats to go outside. Happily, where I live, virtually
everyone has at least one cat and those who don't have them like them,
so nobody complains.
I don't like other people's kids much, but I have to put up with them
when I go outside because that's life. I complain about them, but I
don't kill them. That's the way we do things here.
> And I suspect that you are in the minority in the
> uk, having to walk to your house miles from a road.
Dear oh dear, you do like to throw yourself at conclusions don't you?
You *do* like to put words into people's mouths to fit your own
preconceptions. Did I say I had to "walk to my house miles from a
road"? Most certainly not. There's a road not far away, but is it a
busy main road or is it a lane? Is it a dual carriageway or is it
a mere track?
I said I don't have a road running outside my house and you leap to the
conclusion that I claimed to be "miles from a road". With leaps of
illogic like that it really is impossible to have any kind of logical
debate with you.
Bron
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:37:13 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote:
>
> I have the scratches at the moment to prove that does happen :(
Yes, I have done it too. I even ran over the tail with my computer chair...
but that didn't prompt me to chuck the thing outside as a consequence.
> As far as you would like.
It's a classic example of irresponsible attitudes and the most ridiculous
justification for outside cats that I have EVER heard.
> One cage for another?
Yes. For all the reasons i've previously posted. Better in a cage than
DEAD.
>
> Good of the community? Oh sure. The good of the cats should come
> first.
TROLL ALERT
>
> No, untrue. More cats die inside than out.
>
Not in my street.
Bron
Bron
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:34:23 +1000, "Bron" <m...@where.am.i> wrote:
>
> Yes it is cruel to keep a cat caged. Maybe we should gather up all the
> other wildlife and cage them, then we can let our cats roam in peace
> {yes, that was meant to be a sarcastic remark.}
Which wildlife should we cage? The extinct ones or the almost extinct ones?
Better to cull all the outside cats and save the wildlife.
Bron
Bron
> Aw yes Alley Cat, and before you go about insulting me in relation to the
hmmm.. gma...@home.com would indicate america to most of us :-)
So would X-Complaints-To: ab...@home.net
Bron
lsil...@nobody.metz.une.edu.au
think it belong on any of them.
Regardless, please remove it from aus.pets.
Thanks,
Tish
remove nobody to email
[absurd rantings deleted]