Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue
CatKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / June 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

My cat had an accident - I'm sick with worry!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Calico - 27 May 2007 20:22 GMT
I live on the third floor of an apartment block and yesterday I didn't
close one of the windows properly. Next thing I realise that I hadn't
seen puss in a while so I went looking for her when I noticed she had
pushed it open and jumped out onto concrete. I ran down and managed to
get her back inside but she had a bloody nose and seemed to be in
shock.

She's a calico, and goes CRAZY when taken to the vet so I thought the
best thing to do was to keep her in her environment and keep her calm.
She was walking around okay & didn't seem to have broken anything
apart from busting her nose.

So she kind of curled up and went into herself so I thought the best
thing to do was to let her be. Then this morning she was still really,
really subdued and I noticed that she was going to the toilet a lot
and passing small amounts of blood. I also read lots on the internet
last night about cats dying from going into shock so I got her into
the vets at 11 am this morning. (she had her fall about 2pm yesterday)
As expected the vets examination was traumatic for the cat she ended
up biting the vet and on one of his shelves. But we got her down & he
gave her anti-shock meds & painkillers. He said that she had injured
her back but couldn't tell how severe the damage was without doing x-
rays. So he's keeping her in today & tomorrow.

I feel so guilty! I should have made sure the close the window
properly and brought her to the vet IMMEDIATELY after it happened.
She's up there now and I know she is going to be totally stressed out
& I am convinced she is going to die in a cage up there from some
internal injury. It's Sunday today so there is probably no supervision
up there today/tonight.

The vet said there was no threat to her life and that I shouldn't
worry but I just KNOW the cat isn't going to get better. And if there
is a chance she'll probably require surgery in another district so I
don't know if it would be better to let her go!

Has anyone had similar experiences with back injuries and cats? She
seemed okay yesterday but for being subdued & was even purring this
morning & was walking okay and everything.

I should mention that this is my brothers cat who passed away a couple
of years ago. He ADORED her so she has to be make it. I've been crying
all day thinking about him and the cat being frightened up in the
vets. What am I going to do??
cybercat - 27 May 2007 20:28 GMT
>I live on the third floor of an apartment block and yesterday I didn't
> close one of the windows properly. Next thing I realise that I hadn't
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> She's a calico, and goes CRAZY when taken to the vet so I thought the
> best thing to do was to keep her in her environment and keep her calm.

No. You know better. Take your cat to the vet.
bookie - 27 May 2007 20:31 GMT
> >I live on the third floor of an apartment block and yesterday I didn't
> > close one of the windows properly. Next thing I realise that I hadn't
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> No. You know better. Take your cat to the vet.

er...she has done
Nomen Nescio - 28 May 2007 06:20 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: bookie <emily_booker@hotmail.com>

>> No. You know better. Take your cat to the vet.
>
>er...she has done

You don't think Nancy actually reads something before expressing
her opinion. Do you?
Calico - 28 May 2007 06:39 GMT
I have to say, some of you guys have been very unkind. The cat didn't
seem to have any broken bones and was stunned more than anything. I
didn't realise the implications of shock and thought the best thing
was to keep her in a quiet place where she would be undisturbed and
not re-traumatised by going to the vet. By next morning - which was
sunday - the first thing I did was call all the local vets until I
found one that would take her. And that was indeed extremely traumatic
for the cat and all the vet did was put in her cage, completely
stressed, and left her probably unsupervised, until this morning. How
is that better than what I was doing? Anyway, to those of you who have
tried to make me feel better, thanks. I should find out more about the
cat tonight.
cybercat - 28 May 2007 08:17 GMT
>I have to say, some of you guys have been very unkind. The cat didn't
> seem to have any broken bones and was stunned more than anything. I
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> tried to make me feel better, thanks. I should find out more about the
> cat tonight.

Take responsibility for your actions. Your cat fell out of the window,
and you allowed her to go without veterinary treatment for 48  hours.
Any complaints you have with your vet, if indeed you ever took the cat
to a vet, are a separate issue.

Unkind? That is a very mild description of someone who neglected
to get their cat medical help, as you did.

Be an irresponsible caretaker, but don't do it and expect to tell people
about it and not be called on it.

Your cat fell out the window? Take her to the VET right AWAY. What
is hard to understand about that?
bookie - 28 May 2007 16:43 GMT
> > seem to have any broken bones and was stunned more than anything. I
> > didn't realise the implications of shock and thought the best thing
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Your cat fell out the window? Take her to the VET right AWAY. What
> is hard to understand about that?

i second that, bookie
sheelagh - 28 May 2007 17:19 GMT
> > seem to have any broken bones and was stunned more than anything. I
> > didn't realise the implications of shock and thought the best thing
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Your cat fell out the window? Take her to the VET right AWAY. What
> is hard to understand about that?

And be sure to be honest about what happened to your cat, otherwise
they won't be able to help you. Not Harsh, honesty will get you where
you need to be
S:o)
Calico - 28 May 2007 19:21 GMT
I have just got my cat back and thankfully, the vet expects her to
make a full recovery. However, I will just say that the whole time at
the vet was probably more traumatic to the cat than the fall, not to
mention the poor dote hardly being able to stand up at the moment
after the anaesthetic. The vet gave her the once over but gave no
treatment (apart from the injections when I brought her up first) so
in actual fact, the best thing for kitty was EXACTLY what I was doing,
which was keeping her in a nice, warm, quiet place. She is actually in
a awful state now compared to how I brought her in.

But I don't care a jot about any of that - or some of the a.sholes in
this newsgroup - I am just glad she is going to be okay, and hopefully
will not get the opportunity to try her paw at flying again.

Thanks to those who tried to offer genuine advice.
MaryL - 28 May 2007 19:36 GMT
>I have just got my cat back and thankfully, the vet expects her to
> make a full recovery. However, I will just say that the whole time at
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Thanks to those who tried to offer genuine advice.

That is wonderful news to hear that your cat is going to be alright.
However, I would like to emphasize that you did the right thing by taking
her to the vet.  *Many* cats are extremely fearful of the vet (somewhat like
small children).  Unfortunately, we can't explain to them why we are placing
them in what must seem like a terrible situation.  The point is, we really
*must* have our furbabies evaluated at certain times (and the bad fall you
described is one of them).  Even if "bedrest" turns out to be the only
treatment, we simply can't tell that there are no problems by just
"looking."  We need an examination by someone who is medically qualified.
So, be glad that you had her checked out.  Think how terrible you would have
felt if you had *not* gone to the vet and your cat had suffered serious
consequences as a result.

MaryL

Photos of Duffy and Holly:      >'o'<
Duffy:  http://tinyurl.com/cslwf
Holly:  http://tinyurl.com/9t68o
Duffy and Holly together:  http://tinyurl.com/8b47e
Cheryl - 28 May 2007 21:59 GMT
>> I have just got my cat back and thankfully, the vet expects her
>> to make a full recovery. However, I will just say that the whole
>> time at the vet was probably more traumatic to the cat than the
>> fall, not to mention the poor dote hardly being able to stand
>> up at the moment after the anaesthetic.

Very good news!  I'm glad you got her examined. As MaryL said, the
stress involved in taking them to the vet can't be helped.  Unless
you can afford to have a vet make housecalls (do they even do that
any more?) it unavoidable.

I hope she'll be ok. I was worried about her. I was worried that
the bleeding from the nose was more than just a nose injury.
Internal bleeding can result in bleeding from the nose or mouth or
even ears.

> That is wonderful news to hear that your cat is going to be
> alright. However, I would like to emphasize that you did the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> MaryL

Well said, Mary. This is just one of the many reasons a yearly exam
from a young age is important. Not only can the vet form baselines
of overall health, it helps to condition the cat to the carrier,
the car (bus, cab, etc), the vets office and being handled. My
sister has a cat that is a total demon to try to get in a carrier.
And while mine don't like it, they are used to it when they have to
go in.

Signature

Cheryl

Lis - 28 May 2007 21:21 GMT
> I have just got my cat back and thankfully, the vet expects her to
> make a full recovery. However, I will just say that the whole time at
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Thanks to those who tried to offer genuine advice.

It's great news that your cat is going to be okay!

Many cats find it upsetting to go to the vet; that doesn't mean that
they don't need to go. It's our job as the pet owners to be the adult
supervision and insist on things that they need but would not/could
not do for themselves, even the things they would avoid because
they're unpleasant. You COULD NOT have done for the cat what the vet
did--give anti-shock meds and painkillers. And if kitty was just
recovering from the anaesthetic when you wrote this post, no, the last
treament was NOT two days ago when you brought her in.

You did the right thing bringing her in to the vet, even though it's
upsetting to her. Really you did.

Lis
bookie - 29 May 2007 00:08 GMT
> I have just got my cat back and thankfully, the vet expects her to
> make a full recovery. However, I will just say that the whole time at
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Thanks to those who tried to offer genuine advice.

i have to disagree with you, regardless fo what ytou thought was the
right thing, takign her to the vets was the best thing to do even
though it turned out to be ok and that she did not need much doing
exceopt painkillers etc (although without those she may have suffered
sever shock and things coudl have got complicated).

yes trips to the vets can be traumatic and cats can wail about it but
you did nto know what may have happened inside her tiny body, she
coudl have had internal bleeding or head trauma and died in a a very
painful way days later and that woudl nto have been pleasant for
anyone woudl it?

If you really do nto want to put her through the trauma of going to
the vets again can you get the vet to come out to you perhaps? ring
them before you really need them and discuss this possibility with
them. I agree that if an animal is really sick then the last thing
they need is to be stressed out as that can also lead to complicatiion
and can hinder recivery but sometimes the cat really needs to be seen
by a professional asap and after an accident like a bad fall as your
cat had is one of those times.

sorry if i sound harsh but it si true, anyway I am glad that she is
ok, please look after her from now one and keep all those windows
shut, and ask at the vets about the possibility of a home visit

bookie
lovethepet - 29 May 2007 03:17 GMT
> I have just got my cat back and thankfully, the vet expects her to
> make a full recovery. However, I will just say that the whole time at
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Thanks to those who tried to offer genuine advice.

Been following this thread and so happy your kitty got the OK. I have
a calico aswell and they can get pretty stressed out easily. Must be
something in the breed but you have to walk on eggshells around them
as they seem to be PMSing 90% of the time. Mine has an enlarged heart
and I had to change my vet to take her to the nearest one because she
hyperventilates as soon as she gets in the car. Anyway, glad for the
good report!
Charlie Wilkes - 29 May 2007 05:10 GMT
> Take responsibility for your actions. Your cat fell out of the window,
> and you allowed her to go without veterinary treatment for 48  hours.
> Any complaints you have with your vet, if indeed you ever took the cat
> to a vet, are a separate issue.

I think you're being too hard on her.  If what she posted is accurate,
she may have erred in her judgment, but not because she lacks concern or
commitment.

My dog got killed because of my poor judgment, so I'm sensitive to the
distinction.

Charlie
cybercat - 29 May 2007 15:32 GMT
>> Take responsibility for your actions. Your cat fell out of the window,
>> and you allowed her to go without veterinary treatment for 48  hours.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> My dog got killed because of my poor judgment, so I'm sensitive to the
> distinction.

Charlie, if your dog were hurt you would have taken him for treatment.

If he fell out the blinking window and had blood coming out of his
nose, are you telling me you would not take him to a vet?

I will never understand these sorry a.sholes who post that they have
an injured or sick cat, and have not taken the animal to the vet. If it
were a child, they would find a way. Or maybe they wouldn't. Poor
cats.
bookie - 29 May 2007 16:33 GMT
> >> Take responsibility for your actions. Your cat fell out of the window,
> >> and you allowed her to go without veterinary treatment for 48  hours.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> were a child, they would find a way. Or maybe they wouldn't. Poor
> cats.

i agree, no reason to wait about and 'see if it gets better by
itself', that is irresponsible and amounts to neglect in my book
Lilah Morgan - 29 May 2007 21:27 GMT
> I will never understand these sorry a.sholes who post that they have
> an injured or sick cat, and have not taken the animal to the vet. If it
> were a child, they would find a way. Or maybe they wouldn't. Poor
> cats.

Except that unfortunately, hospitals and such will most likely not refuse to
treat a critically injured human because they don't have an upfront deposit.
But most vet clinics to my knowledge don't get the donations/funding that
human hospitals get, so they are solely dependent upon the fees they earn.
If you don't have the money, you(and more specifically your pet) are in
trouble. Are vet clinics able to get extra funding/donations like hospitals
do(because then they could put some aside for emergency cases)? I try not to
know too much about tax law and such like that, it makes me confused and
gives me a headache, and I'm confused enough most of the time lately. I'm
just grateful that when Joxer had his accident, I had just gotten enough
money to pay for all his vet bills upfront. And do cats really have such a
fuss about going to the vet? Joxer never really did...he didn't like being
in the carrier, but he wasn't aggressive or nothing, he was just slightly
annoyed at being 'cooped up', and when I picked him up after his surgery,
the clinic had a little report card to go with the itemized bill and such,
and Joxer was very well behaved...he's a laid back kinda guy :-)  Speaking
of, I am trying to get more pictures of him, but he's camera shy...I did
manage to get one of him peeking out from the side of the table when he was
wondering what I was doing at least ;-)
bookie - 29 May 2007 22:19 GMT
> > I will never understand these sorry a.sholes who post that they have
> > an injured or sick cat, and have not taken the animal to the vet. If it
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> manage to get one of him peeking out from the side of the table when he was
> wondering what I was doing at least ;-)

what do you mean yu had to pay up front? do you mean before they had
even treated your cat? unlikely I think
dunno aboutthe US of A but in blighty you only afer treatment is
complete and even then you coudl proabbly work out a payment plan with
the vet, they're not mad money grabbers you know but they do have
their own bills to cover.

for peple in serious money strife over here there is the PDSA
(people's dispensary for sick animals) which will give care for
animals of people on the dole (on state benefits or unemployed or long
term sick) and old people on state pensions, so people om the dole
have no excuses either really. Also i think the blue cross helps out
that way too but not entirely sure, I have never had to use either
myself as I always try to find the money form somewhere
unlike the majority of people on the brink of poverty I don't spend
every last penny i have on gin and fags, instead I save any spare cash
i get hold of just for and cat-related emergencies which may occur,
but then i must be odd like that

bookie
mariib - 30 May 2007 04:25 GMT
>> > I will never understand these sorry a.sholes who post that they have
>> > an injured or sick cat, and have not taken the animal to the vet. If it
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>bookie

Hey Bookie - you say you thought it's unlikely that a clinic could ask for $$
$$ upfront? and that's $$$$ as in LOTS of money? I'm in Toronto & let me tell
you about the 2 Emergency Animal Clinics in the north part of the city here
(see, I'm not naming names, but anyone from here with pets will be able to
figure out which emergency clinics in North York I'm talking about!). If you
have an emergency & have to use their services, they let you know before a
vet will see your pet that you will have to pay right then & there for
treatment. And they really charge! I've had no choice but to use these
emergency clinics a couple times over the past 20 years. The last time was
about 5 years ago, a couple days after my 16 yr old orange CRF kitty Ginger
was put to sleep & released from his misery at my regular vet's office.
Ginger & my other 16 yr female cat Tigra had been brought together since they
were kittens & were inseparable. When Ginger didn't come home with me, she
stopped eating, drinking, moving, just sat numb on a chair. By Thursday, day
3 of not eating, when I realized the weekend was coming up, I panicked & took
her to my regular cat vet (normal billing procedures, normal reasonable rates)
where she stayed overnight, but they told me on the Friday they couldn't give
her appropriate intensive care over the weekend & arranged for her to be
transferred to the nearby Emergency Clinic. I had to pay this clinic $1,000
Canadian upfront on my arrival there (like a retainer) & sign that I would
accept responsibility for all other treatment charges until she was released.
I moved her back to my regular vet on the Monday, $1500 - $1600 poorer in
total costs. For IV, drugs, an xray or 2. What was wrong with her? I don't
know - the vets didn't find anything - grief I guess. The bill from my
regular vet for the couple days there was less than $300. Quite a difference.
I had the same experience years earlier at the other Emergency Clinic with
another cat. The only positive thing I can say about these clinics - they're
there, they're open & well-staffed 24/7.  And my gentle beige & white cat
Coco (or maybe he's soft brown & white, or blonde & white) was unwanted,
dumped & caged there for 3-4 months. When I came to pick up Tigra, I saw Coco
there & came back later & adopted him.
M.
Lis - 30 May 2007 04:58 GMT
> > "cybercat" <cyberpu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> the vet, they're not mad money grabbers you know but they do have
> their own bills to cover.

The UK is not the whole world, and unfortunately in the USA many vet
clinics do require payment up front--but they're also usually willing
to work out payment plans for expensive procedures. Also, regular
clients get treated differently than a stranger who's come in for the
first time. When I recently had my dog spayed, the form I signed said
I was acknowledging that payment was required in advance--but in fact,
they waited until I came back to pick her up to take my payment. Not
because I asked them; that's just what they did.

> for peple in serious money strife over here there is the PDSA
> (people's dispensary for sick animals) which will give care for
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> i get hold of just for and cat-related emergencies which may occur,
> but then i must be odd like that

It's sometimes possible to get assistance from various pet charitable
funds for necessary surgery, but it's limited and not something you
can take for granted or plan on at all. We recently had a fair bit of
national coverage for a handicapped war veteran who was mowing lawns
to raise money for surgery for his dog.

Lis
sheelagh - 30 May 2007 18:28 GMT
> > > "cybercat" <cyberpu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 62 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bookie isn't the only one who thinks this way. I find it rather hard
to understand as well, but then again, I live in the UK too..
I was shocked to read Mari's story. It seems a bit mercenary, but I
suppose you are right Lis

Having said that, all our vet's get, is what their customers pay them
to do, here as well.  All of the charities and organisations that
Bookie mentions to you are run on charitable donations that we, the
public, contribute to them. None of it happens for nothing as it were!
The RSPCA, are not funded at all by the government, nor is the Blue x
or the Cat Protection League either. All of it works on us working
with them, to ensure that if people who are less fortunate, for one
reason or another @ that time, do get the chance to ensure that they
pets do don't remain in pain & are treated as they should be.

Taking this into consideration, you might understand why we find it
hard to take in the fact that no one will help, unless there is
something in it for them?

Take this situation for example. If this were to happen over here,
there are several options available. You could start by calling any of
these charities and they would advise you on what best to do. If you
simply"CAN'T"  treat the cat, then we would probably go to the cat
protection League who "Will" take the cats into their care & for the
duration of the stay, or treament, then allow them home when they are
treated...

If it is treatment that is needed, you would normally go to your vet
with your sick cat. At the start, the vet will tell you that if there
is any chance that you can't foot the bill, that you must sign an
agreement agreeing to pay in due course on a regular basis. they will
also tell you where to go to get financial support it you can't get to
one of their own hospitals, or there is not one in your area. Anyone
who doesn't pay their vet's bill, will end up in  court!!

In fact part of taking your cat to the vet, is to get advice like
this, & to put you in touch with the charities that she mentioned, who
will help you towards the cost of the treatment your cat needs. It
seems rather incomprehensible that any Vet would say they are not
willing to treat unless there is a retainer paid. I guess we simply
don't want to believe that a vet would turn away a cat in need,
because it would never happen over here (touch wood, I'm sure it will
happen in the end!).;o(

If there was a situation where a cat was in desperate need & you
simply don't have what is required to get the cat treated, you have  2
options open to you. Get yourself to one of the hospitals or
charities, or call the RSPCA, who "Will" respond to your call and
collect the cat. I think the major factor in this one is relativity.
The UK is a hell of a lot smaller than the USA, so when we think
covers the whole country, we have different perspectives on how big
Nationwide can be!!

I understand it, I just don't like it.. it feels really sad...
S.
Lilah Morgan - 30 May 2007 21:52 GMT
> Bookie isn't the only one who thinks this way. I find it rather hard
> to understand as well, but then again, I live in the UK too..

I know the UK is more considerate when it comes to animals than the US is. A
friend of mine in Liverpool adopted a kitten last year, and here in the
States, at animal shelters you basically just pay like $50 and you get to
take the animal home. But she told me that there it's much more involved.
You get a home visit, your financial/employment status gets checked, etc,
all to make sure the animal you want to adopt is going to be in a home where
they are not only loved, but if any medical issues should arise, that the
owners will be able to cover the bills. I wish they took that much care when
animals get adopted here. Used to watch a show about ASPCA(American Society
for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) officers investigating complaints of
animal cruelty, and I couldn't stomach it for too long. It wasn't so much
the ones about people getting more animals than they could decently provide
for, it was more all the incidents of people raising dogs for fighting(I
personally feel that the people who raised dogs to be nothing but killing
machines should be locked in a room with those dogs for a while), and the
ones where the people did have the means to provide for the animals, they
just didn't care. And back to vet bills and cats...the 24hour vet place I
took Joxer to when he finally came home, I believe I paid $200 up front, and
they didn't fix him up there, they just gave him some anti-shock stuff and
cleaned the wound a bit...they seemed rather annoyed that when they said I
could take him home and get him fixed up later, I wasn't sure if that was a
good idea. I mean his wound was BAD(I believe he nearly got cut to the
bone), and just because he was still functioning, I really didn't take that
as a sign of health. He had this thigh slashed open after all, and it was
still open. But they insisted he was ok, so I took him home, and the next
morning I took him to the clinic my friend worked at. And decided not to go
the 24hour place again if I could help it. That was the only medical
emergency I've ever had with a pet luckily. But we've usually paid upfront
anyways, though granted it was for routine stuff, a checkup, rabies shots,
or getting them fixed, etc, where it was a fixed cost to begin with.
sheelagh - 31 May 2007 00:06 GMT
> > Bookie isn't the only one who thinks this way. I find it rather hard
> > to understand as well, but then again, I live in the UK too..
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> anyways, though granted it was for routine stuff, a checkup, rabies shots,
> or getting them fixed, etc, where it was a fixed cost to begin with.

OMG, I hope that I didn't sound like I was saying the USA doesn't!!?

We just have a different system. Your right about getting vetted for a
cat or kitten if you want one from any of the charities or catteries.
I would never place a cat that I didn't think "felt right"...It has to
be someone that can afford it, will put the cat first every time, & if
they can't, the first person they would call, would be me. If none of
these things fit, even right down to the home...the cat never leave.
but If I am happy, then we allow the cat to be homed, especially if
they have chemistry. That is quite important too. I think you might
find it interesting for you see what we have to offer people can
access if there is a dire need. (ie: someone who doesn't expect to
loose his job, might well be a slave to a pair of cat's, who might
become ill for instance, then they can help you out there) The link
will help. To cost things, double the cost  to appreciate the $ &
judge for yourself.....

http://www.pdsa.org.uk/aboutpdsa.html

This is one of the best providers of help in our country,  & the other
carer & provider of assistance is the RSPCA. They same as your society
but totally funded by donation's. Our government does nothing to fund
them at all as far as I am aware.
S;o)
sheelagh - 31 May 2007 00:14 GMT
> > "sheelagh" <sheelagh_mad...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

This might be a more relevant page for you without having to look to
see what they offer in the way of help, to whom & why.....

http://www.pdsa.org.uk/eligibility.html
S;o)
bookie - 31 May 2007 02:14 GMT
> > > "sheelagh" <sheelagh_mad...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

to be honest i just think that us inthe UK tend to be a bit more
caring towards our animals as a country, as a whole, (not talking
about individuals here ok??!!!) and so are more willing to help out
animals for no reason than the fact that we are all animal mad here ,
pretty much, few exceptions of course (remember that weird guy who was
shooting at animals and cats and birds, was not english, he was czech
or something).

if someone took a sick cat to the vet and the vet refused to do
anything then letters woudl be written, the vet would be 'outed' in
the press, people would moan about how outrageous it is that we are
letting down our pets, what happened to the dunkirk spirit, stiff
upper lips, simply not cricket, that it's not what a true englishman
gentleman does ie lets down his faithful friend in the hour of need,
etc etc, and any vet like that would be shamed into helping the animal
regardless of the cost to them and their business. I knwo a couple of
vets and they don;t run their practices to make money at all, they
just about cover costs and that's it and none go into it to make
money, in fact they kind of assume that they may lose some money and
they won't be making huge profits out of it.

if you take an injured stray cat to the vets in this country you
EXPECT the vet to help the cat without question, money issues can wait
(anyway we dontl talk about money over here, simply not done , very
rude in fact), there is a life at stake, and anyone who refused to
help purely on the grounds of lack of payment for their services woudl
be very much in the minority and looked down upon.

what am i trying to say here? basically peolpe in this country are not
out ot make money, certainly anyone connected with helping animals,
vets vet nurses, people who help out animal charities dont; do it for
the moeny and accept that alot of their own money will go towards
helping animals. We just don;t have the 'money-grabbing' culture that
you seem to have in the US, remember that inthis country you can be of
a certain class (middle class, upper class, whichever) with relatively
little money at your disposal, it all about lineage and education and
how you were brought up etc etc, not always to do with cold hard cash
and the acquiring of it.

Class inthis country is also to do with behaviour, and one of the
types of behaviour which is encouraged is being charitable and helping
those less fortunate than oruselves, ie animals, regardless of the
personal cost to ourselves. Which is why vets here don't demand to see
a credit card before they look at your pet, that kind of thing would
be unthinkable and any vet doing that would quickly go out of
business, very vulgar way to go on indeed.

anyway think about the differences in attitudes between us; you have
your cats declawed and have pristine furniture, we have lots of
scratch marks all over our ancient tables and chairs and deal with it
(and have happy cats as a result), says somethign about the different
ways in which we look at our animasl for me

bookie
Lilah Morgan - 31 May 2007 07:43 GMT
> anyway think about the differences in attitudes between us; you have
> your cats declawed and have pristine furniture

My family has actually never declawed our cats. Never seen the point...claw
marks on old furniture just give it more character...can tease people by
saying something like "Oh yeah that was from lion cub when my grandparents
bought this (insert furniture piece name here) on an African safari". That
and I feel a cat should be able to defend itself if need be. I like
furniture that looks used(not like falling apart, but comfortable, like it's
seen generations use it, and it's still going strong) anyways. We just
simply buy(or make) a scratching post because it's natural for them to work
their claws by scratching. They're not doing it as a personal gesture of
contempt. Well Joxer never has. Little freak instead when he gets upset with
me, he'll just wait and simply leave a 'present' for me in my bed...while
I'm sleeping. Though he's only done that once, after I got home from a
'vacation'(my mother took care of him in my absence), and he felt horribly
put out about it. And he is not aggressive at all. Well except when he's in
hunt mode when there's mice or chipmunks around. Generally speaking, his
goal in life is to have his head scratched and his tummy rubbed and his
food/water dish full at all times, and some catnip every once in a while. Oh
and some rubber bands to play with(he loves them for some reason). But yeah,
the US does have quite a few problems when it comes to the medical care
system(for animals as well as people).
bookie - 31 May 2007 13:37 GMT
> > anyway think about the differences in attitudes between us; you have
> > your cats declawed and have pristine furniture
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> the US does have quite a few problems when it comes to the medical care
> system(for animals as well as people).

no I didn't mean YOU personally (did i not put that?) i meant the US
of A generally, just different attitudes to money and life
people really complain about the nhs in this country but they don;t
know how lucky they are really
Lis - 31 May 2007 19:38 GMT
> > "bookie" <emily_boo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Um, well, on that last point, I agree with you. People here blather
about how AWFUL it would be if we had something like the NHS, but in
your country, people don't go bankrupt because of medical costs--and
the waits for treatment with your gov. bureaucracy do not seem to be
noticeably longer than with our for-profit bureaucracy.

Lis
Lynne - 31 May 2007 21:08 GMT
> the waits for treatment with your gov. bureaucracy do not seem to be
> noticeably longer than with our for-profit bureaucracy.

it depends on the treatment, and who you ask.

Signature

Lynne

bookie - 31 May 2007 23:30 GMT
> > the waits for treatment with your gov. bureaucracy do not seem to be
> > noticeably longer than with our for-profit bureaucracy.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> --
> Lynne

i think it also kind of depends no which health authority you are with
and where you live inthe country, also what exactly it is you are
suffering from.
for example my aunt had retinal cancer last summer (cancer of the
eyeball basically) and it was only caught when she went for an eye
test for some glasses. anyway, this particualr type of cancer is very
rare, something like 3 people in this country had it last year to that
extent she did, and so she was in hospital the very next week to have
her eyeball removed at the moorfields specialist eye hospital in east
london, no mucking around there.

i think the speed of treatment was because 9a) the cancer was very
likely to spread quickly if the eye was not removed asap and that
woudl probably then cpst the nhs more if they didn;t act straightaway
(b) it is a rare type of cancer so no long waiting lists and (c)
possibly also where she lives, maidenhead, where perhaps the health
authority have more money, or rather the people are fairly wealthy so
more go private and leave more space for nhs patients. Anyway i don't
really know, this is all supposition on my part.

anyway , she also got a really nice glass eye too, free on the nhs.

bookie
Lilah Morgan - 01 Jun 2007 06:13 GMT
> Um, well, on that last point, I agree with you. People here blather
> about how AWFUL it would be if we had something like the NHS, but in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Lis

I've always found it sad that people will get all riled about stupid sh.t
here(like Janet Jackson's wardrobe problem during the SuperBowl for
instance), yet no one really seems to care that it's not considered morally
wrong to have to pay for medical care. I'm sure there are quite a few in the
medical profession who genuinely DON'T care about money and just want to
make people(and animals) better, but you get stupid people suing left and
right for no reason at all or just refusing to pay period, plus all the laws
and such about what doctors are allowed to do and not do in terms of
care(which some are a result of unwarranted lawsuits), and you get a few
morons spoiling it for everyone else. If only stupidity were a crime...and
it's not just in the field of medicine that get ruined by lawsuits here in
the States. I thought the lady who sued McDonald's for getting her fat was
bad, but my mom heard about this one gal who was driving down the road in
her RV, and she had to go to the bathroom, so she puts the RV in cruise
control, LEAVES THE WHEEL, and gets up to go to the bathroom. Of course the
RV crashes. She's not seriously hurt, but she sues the RV manufacturer
because they didn't say in the manual you can't leave the wheel unattended
when it's in cruise control. If that's not bad enough, she WON the lawsuit.
I think she should have been locked up for being so stupid in the first
place, or just paraded around with a sandwich board detailing how much she's
lacking any intelligence. Whatever happened to a little thing called common
sense?! Anyways, back to the original topic, I don't see why it would be so
horrible to have a national health care system...I would gladly pay a little
extra in taxes if I knew it meant I could afford to see a doctor if I needed
to. Same goes with having some kind of similar system for pets. Especially
since it's vet time for the pets next month again. Well depending on what
time zone you're in, it might already be next month.
lurker@invalid.com - 02 Jun 2007 00:05 GMT
>I thought the lady who sued McDonald's for getting her fat was
>bad, but my mom heard about this one gal who was driving down the road in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>because they didn't say in the manual you can't leave the wheel unattended
>when it's in cruise control. If that's not bad enough, she WON the lawsuit.

Snopes!

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

There are many version of that story to be found. :)
bookie - 02 Jun 2007 00:23 GMT
On 2 Jun, 00:05, lur...@invalid.com wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 05:13:44 GMT, "Lilah Morgan"
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> There are many version of that story to be found. :)

i heard the one about the woman who bought a coffee from a McDonalds
drive-thru, wedged it in between her legs to hold it as she drove off,
and when she inevitably spilt it over her ample thighs she sued
McDonalds for persoanl injury or something because of the massive
scalding and burns to her legs and general 'lady area' she suffered as
a result of her own stupidity.

I think the lawyers claimed that she had no idea that the coffee was
going to be so hot or something incredibly stupid like that. If
someone tried that in this country it woudl be laughed out of court,
if it even got that fair in the first place, any judge woudl just tell
the silly old mare that she should not have been so damn stupid and
what she did was her own damn fault.

is it correct that you have the right to have any case heard in a
court of law inthe US? regardless of how outlandish it actually is?
something in your constitution or something, not sure about the
veracity of that statement.
Lilah Morgan - 03 Jun 2007 00:37 GMT
> is it correct that you have the right to have any case heard in a
> court of law inthe US? regardless of how outlandish it actually is?
> something in your constitution or something, not sure about the
> veracity of that statement.

There is supposed to be a law or something preventing frivolous lawsuits,
but apparently it doesn't get used too much. If you go by the strict letter
of the law, even the most stupidest lawsuits have merit. Which is why there
are human judges. To publicly shame stupid people for not even realizing how
stupid they are! But then again, the judge just might want A: to get
publicity by allowing such a stupid case to go forward, knowing there will
be lots of press, or B: have a personal issue with whoever's being sued, or
C: be stupid themselves.
Lis - 03 Jun 2007 16:17 GMT
> On 2 Jun, 00:05, lur...@invalid.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> the silly old mare that she should not have been so damn stupid and
> what she did was her own damn fault.

That's the popular version of the story, promoted by the "tort reform"
crowd who want to make it prohibitively hard for individuals to sue
corporations, ever. The reality was rather different.
A) She wasn't the driver; she was a passenger.
B)The car was parked, not moving. PARKED, in the designated area of
the McDonald's lot for drive-up customers.
C) McDonald's served its coffee 40F hotter than any other major chain.
People expect coffee to be hot; they don't expect it to be 40F hotter
than anyone else serves it. McD's had been warned repeatedly that it
was a problem--including previous lawsuits settled for lower amounts.
D) The coffee spilled because the cup lid was defective. McDonald's
was ALSO on notice that the lids were defective, and had chosen not to
replace them before that supply ran out--to save money, you see.

McDonald's lost that case in court because the jury was prevented with
overwhelming evidence that the stupidity and carelessness in the case
was McDonald's, not the woman's. They did, however, win in the arena
of public opinion, where trivial things like facts don't matter.'

> is it correct that you have the right to have any case heard in a
> court of law inthe US? regardless of how outlandish it actually is?
> something in your constitution or something, not sure about the
> veracity of that statement.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Anyone can sue anyone about anything. That doesn't mean it won't get
thrown out as frivolous, or malicious, and lawyers who cooperate in
friviolous or malicious lawsuits can be disbarred, which is a pretty
strong disincentive to bringing cases you can't win anyway.

Lis
-L. - 07 Jun 2007 07:20 GMT
> > i heard the one about the woman who bought a coffee from a McDonalds
> > drive-thru, wedged it in between her legs to hold it as she drove off,
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> than anyone else serves it. McD's had been warned repeatedly that it
> was a problem--including previous lawsuits settled for lower amounts.

IIRC there were 150 reports of serious burns requiring medical
attention from their too-hot coffee.

She was an "older" woman and her thighs were not "ample".

> D) The coffee spilled because the cup lid was defective. McDonald's
> was ALSO on notice that the lids were defective, and had chosen not to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> was McDonald's, not the woman's. They did, however, win in the arena
> of public opinion, where trivial things like facts don't matter.'

Yep.  She also sued only for her unpaid medical expenses and ended up
getting about 1/5 of what she owed - something like $300K.

-L.
reeper - 07 Jun 2007 10:20 GMT
the fact that it was about her pussy was SHOCKING
so sure to give her a win with any jury
any men on the jury are thinking about her pussy
any women on the jury are thinking about the pain
win win win

it had to be a pussy is my point
even an older one

now if a man burnt his stuff, do you think we would get paid? noooo

> > > i heard the one about the woman who bought a coffee from a McDonalds
> > > drive-thru, wedged it in between her legs to hold it as she drove off,
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> -L.
sheelagh - 31 May 2007 15:47 GMT
> > > > "sheelagh" <sheelagh_mad...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 125 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

> if you take an injured stray cat to the vets in this country you
> EXPECT the vet to help the cat without question, money issues can wait
> (anyway we dontl talk about money over here, simply not done , very
> rude in fact), there is a life at stake, and anyone who refused to
> help purely on the grounds of lack of payment for their services woudl
> be very much in the minority and looked down upon.

We tend to go to the press when we weed out a vet who puts his pension
fund before his clients. It has the most amazing knack of emptying
their surgery's & filling others who are slightly more compassionate.
It's simply incorrect to think that way, if you want our money to fund
it
S;o)

Very well put though Bookie!
Lis - 31 May 2007 19:35 GMT
<snip>

> anyway think about the differences in attitudes between us; you have
> your cats declawed and have pristine furniture, we have lots of
> scratch marks all over our ancient tables and chairs and deal with it
> (and have happy cats as a result), says somethign about the different
> ways in which we look at our animasl for me

Sweetie-pie, _some_ people have their cats declawed. It's
controversial, most vets refuse to do it in most circumstances, humane
societies and breeders generally include BOTH "must be an indoor cat
only" and "must not be declawed" clauses in all adoption/purchase
contracts.

I have happy cats, that have all their claws, AND mostly undamaged
furniture, because I've always provided appropriate scratching
surfaces for my cats, and taught them where they are.

As usual, when blathering on about the USA, you have no idea what
you're talking about.

Lis
cybercat - 31 May 2007 19:59 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> As usual, when blathering on about the USA, you have no idea what
> you're talking about.

One of the reasons I have bookie killfiled.
Lynne - 31 May 2007 21:07 GMT
> One of the reasons I have bookie killfiled.

who?

Hehe.

Signature

Lynne

bookie - 31 May 2007 23:36 GMT
> > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

i arrived!!!!! i have been killfiled!!!!!! fantastic!!!!! oscar wilde
said that the only thing worse than being laughed at was to be
ignored, and at least I am not ignored if someone is actually going to
the lengths of killfiling me.
you have no idea how much that amuses me that I irk someone so much
that they go to such trouble, ha ha ha! i truly think that to be
universally liked would be a curse, emans you are dull and samey and
forgettable, but at least I have riled someone so much with what i say
that they do this and they won;t forget me.

oh dear lord, you do not know how much that has made my day, very
funny, i am so pleased that you do not consider me to be on your
wavelength and that you have killfiled me, especially considering how
boring and pre-menstrual you yourself have become lately. Just
marvellous!
Matthew - 01 Jun 2007 00:02 GMT
>> > <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> boring and pre-menstrual you yourself have become lately. Just
> marvellous!

How does it feel bookie ;-)  You are stepping up in the world

I am not going to snip your response I really interested in the response.
Can you tell I am bored ;-)
cybercat - 01 Jun 2007 00:13 GMT
> How does it feel bookie ;-)  You are stepping up in the world
>
> I am not going to snip your response I really interested in the response.
> Can you tell I am bored ;-)

You may be, but you cannot force me to read bookie. :)
Charlie Wilkes - 01 Jun 2007 03:27 GMT
> > How does it feel bookie ;-)  You are stepping up in the world
> >
> > I am not going to snip your response I really interested in the response.
> > Can you tell I am bored ;-)
>
> You may be, but you cannot force me to read bookie. :)

Killfiling Bookie & Sheelagh means passing up a lot of opportunities to
stir the sh.t.

Charlie
Matthew - 01 Jun 2007 03:39 GMT
>> > How does it feel bookie ;-)  You are stepping up in the world
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Charlie

He he he he  I like your thinking Charlie
cybercat - 01 Jun 2007 05:28 GMT
>> > How does it feel bookie ;-)  You are stepping up in the world
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Killfiling Bookie & Sheelagh means passing up a lot of opportunities to
> stir the sh.t.

:) Good point, Charlie.
The_Spirit_Of_Truth_beeyotches_better_recognize_I_come_in_the_name_of_jeebus_by_the_power_of_the_holy_spurt - 01 Jun 2007 05:42 GMT
On May 31, 10:27 pm, Charlie Wilkes
<charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com> wrote:
> In article <f3nkr3$b9...@aioe.org>, cyberpu...@yahoo.com says...
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Charlie

Plus, you lose a fascinating glimpse into the British education
system....
sheelagh - 01 Jun 2007 17:03 GMT
On 1 Jun, 03:27, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com>
wrote:
> In article <f3nkr3$b9...@aioe.org>, cyberpu...@yahoo.com says...
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Charlie

He He He, that works both ways of course though, doesn't it Charlie?

Far be it from me to mince my words.....

I only ever sh.t stir on well pissed off mode
Well worth knowing mind you!
S;o)
sheelagh - 01 Jun 2007 01:50 GMT
> >> "Lis" <lis.ca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Liberating...
sheelagh - 01 Jun 2007 01:39 GMT
> i arrived!!!!! i have been killfiled!!!!!! fantastic!!!!! oscar wilde
> said that the only thing worse than being laughed at was to be
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

If It helps, you are not alone. I'm killfiled too....

Lol...
Only difference is that I was told by someone else.
S;o)
sheelagh - 01 Jun 2007 01:46 GMT
> > "Lis" <lis.ca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

If It helps, you are not alone, Lol..
So am I.
The only difference is that someone else told me so....
S;o)
bookie - 31 May 2007 23:32 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Lis

i said 'some' people, i didn't mean all.

so i have no idea what I am talking about eh? so you are sayign that
when i state that some people in the US have their cats declawed that
I am wrong ? are you sayign that noone in the states gets their cat
declawed?
Lilah Morgan - 01 Jun 2007 01:52 GMT
> so i have no idea what I am talking about eh? so you are sayign that
> when i state that some people in the US have their cats declawed that
> I am wrong ? are you sayign that noone in the states gets their cat
> declawed?

You didn't say 'some' though, this was what you said:

"anyway think about the differences in attitudes between us; you have
your cats declawed and have pristine furniture, we have lots of
scratch marks all over our ancient tables and chairs and deal with it
(and have happy cats as a result), says somethign about the different
ways in which we look at our animasl for me"
Lilah Morgan - 01 Jun 2007 06:50 GMT
Dammit accidentally hit send before I added that if there is another post
where you did say some(for some reason sometimes posts don't show up.
Usually mine, but they show the replies to it), then I apologize.

> > so i have no idea what I am talking about eh? so you are sayign that
> > when i state that some people in the US have their cats declawed that
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> (and have happy cats as a result), says somethign about the different
> ways in which we look at our animasl for me"
bookie - 01 Jun 2007 18:55 GMT
> Dammit accidentally hit send before I added that if there is another post
> where you did say some(for some reason sometimes posts don't show up.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

when i put 'you' i meant 'you the country' not 'you personally' I am
not daft enough to say that you the indivdiual has declawed their cat
cos I dontl knwo whether you have or not, i cannot remember whether
certain individuals have or not, i dontl take that much notice
bookie
-L. - 07 Jun 2007 07:24 GMT
> when i put 'you' i meant 'you the country' not 'you personally' I am
> not daft enough to say that you the indivdiual has declawed their cat
> cos I dontl knwo whether you have or not, i cannot remember whether
> certain individuals have or not, i dontl take that much notice
> bookie

Only about 6% of owned cats in the US are declawed.  That's a very
small percentage of all cats in the US.

-L.
Charlie Wilkes - 01 Jun 2007 03:23 GMT
> so i have no idea what I am talking about eh? so you are sayign that
> when i state that some people in the US have their cats declawed that
> I am wrong ? are you sayign that noone in the states gets their cat
> declawed?

My cat is slowly destroying my green leather barca loungers, which cost
about $800 apiece... the most expensive furniture I own.

I may declaw him myself, with angle cutters.

Charlie
Lynne - 01 Jun 2007 04:06 GMT
on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:23:03 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
<charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:

> My cat is slowly destroying my green leather barca loungers, which cost
> about $800 apiece... the most expensive furniture I own.
>
> I may declaw him myself, with angle cutters.

you'll post photos, right?

Signature

Lynne

Charlie Wilkes - 01 Jun 2007 07:06 GMT
> on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:23:03 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
> <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> you'll post photos, right?

Sure.  I actually have some experience in this area.  A few years ago, I
found myself nursing a rooster who had a terrible infection on his legs
and feet.  Scaly leg mites, it turned out to be.  One of his toes was
beyond saving, and it was curled around under the ball of his foot,
causing him great pain every time he tried to put pressure on that foot.  
It was mostly bone with a thin covering of skin, so I lopped it off with
a pair of angle cutters, and I posted a photo of the severed digit lying
next to the cutters.

It didn't seem to bother the bird at all, and it hardly bled, but I
caught hell from a couple of people in sci.ag.poultry for not using an
anesthetic.  But I have run this by a couple of vets, and they both said
that injecting the anesthetic would have caused more stress and
discomfort than a quick, decisive amputation.

As for Tweaker, my cat... I suppose I'd have to give him a shot of
whisky at least.  Another option would be to fit him out with a shock
collar and zap him whenever he claws the barca lounger.

BUT, I do think I have discouraged this behavior somewhat by simply
clapping my hands and crying "NO!" when I see him do it.  Also, the
polished leather is not his favorite type of scratching material.  He
prefers the canvas on my futon-factory sofa, and that is a good piece of
furniture for him to slowly destroy.

Charlie
look at us we're beautiful - 01 Jun 2007 12:09 GMT
On Jun 1, 2:06 am, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com>
wrote:

> It didn't seem to bother the bird at all, and it hardly bled, but I
> caught hell from a couple of people in sci.ag.poultry for not using an
> anesthetic.
> Charlie

I see, the toe was dead and had no feeling (specially with no blood)
like cutting a callous off the foot.

I am sure if you had cut him too deep he would have pecked your eyes
bookie - 01 Jun 2007 18:57 GMT
On 1 Jun, 07:06, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com>
wrote:
> In article <Xns9941EB11C3287HDocumentsandSett...@216.196.97.142>,
> unmonitored.em...@gmail.com says...> on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:23:03 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Charlie

you could always practise on yourself first to maek sure you get it
right, you don't want damage your tools on the cat do you?
Lis - 01 Jun 2007 15:54 GMT
> > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, Bookie, you didn't say "some." You said:

"anyway think about the differences in attitudes between us; you have
your cats declawed and have pristine furniture, we have lots of
scratch marks all over our ancient tables and chairs and deal with it
(and have happy cats as a result), says somethign about the different
ways in which we look at our animasl for me"

You presented Americans as callous, furniture-obsessed monsters who
all declaw our cats, in contrast to those decent human beings, the
Brits, who would rather have their furniture wrecked. And you implied
that all our cats are unhappy, too.

You have wrecked furniture. I have intact furniture, AND happy cats,
because I've provided appropriate, attractive-to-them places for them
to climb and scratch and hide. Also toys for them to play with;
they're not bored out of their minds with nothing better for them to
do than wreck my furniture. I bet Sheelagh doesn't have wrecked
furniture, either.

Lis
bookie - 01 Jun 2007 19:03 GMT
> > > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

and you have just implied that all my furniture is wrecked and I am
not providing my cats with adequate means to sharpen their claws on or
climb and hide and suchlike, and that they are both bored out of their
minds and so wreck my furniture.

considering that with our animal welfare law now you are pretty much
accusing me of breaking the law and of being a criminal, I would be
careful what you say now as it could well amount to defamation of
character. Especially as what you may be implying about me personally
is not true (but why let that small detail stop you)

sure you want to go down that route?
sheelagh - 02 Jun 2007 02:12 GMT
> > > > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is all going a little bit toooo Far.

If you think I like the sound of my own voice-then you do. Who gives a
monkeys?

If  the comment was intended to slight me, then it failed. I don't
feel the need to do the same to you right now......

Just for the record, I could do with a new 3 piece because the cats
have ravaged it in the side and on the arm too. I would love to say
that was the cats wouldn't damage it, but it is not true. They have
also scratched the hell out of my coffee table legs as well, but so
what, I can replace them, where I can't replace them.

To me, if you declaw your cat, it is cruel. I couldn't consider doing
it, & that is the end of the matter. I don't care if they are chinese,
Canadian or Brits, it is wrong-end of.

OTOH, I do actively discourage it where possible, & I get quite peeved
when they climb on the top in the kitchen;only one particular top, but
It's a no no here. My plate & their feet don't mix...marlbes & jars
work well here.....

I don't think for one moment Bookie"intended" to slight anyone here,
sometimes things just come across the wrong way, & I can see where it
did here. Lis, I "know" she certainly didn't intend to provoke you.(or
anyone else). It is out of hand, & we should know better than to
attack one another in here.

There are far more important things we could be talking about without
giving in to what is clearly exactly what the trolls want. We are
creating 7th heaven. how about we stop what we are doing & take a long
hard think about what "could" happen here. I'm done with name
calling.
I'd much rather hear Matthews house Rules over again.. they were
hilarious & I hope he shares them with us all. They were ever so good,
but more to the point, so true, that you had to laugh when you got
through them;o)
I think we can do better than this...don't you?

S;o)
Lis - 02 Jun 2007 04:27 GMT
> > > > > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 74 lines]
> If  the comment was intended to slight me, then it failed. I don't
> feel the need to do the same to you right now......

Um, Sheelagh, no, my qualification in that statement was intended
specifically to make clear that I _wasn't_ including you; that I was
throwing Bookie repeated insults and defamations of my country back at
_her_, and not at every person who happens to be British, and
especially not at you--who doesn't engage in this sort of generalized,
taken-for-granted-as-fact defamation of my country.

> Just for the record, I could do with a new 3 piece because the cats
> have ravaged it in the side and on the arm too. I would love to say
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> it, & that is the end of the matter. I don't care if they are chinese,
> Canadian or Brits, it is wrong-end of.

Bookie may have confused the issue by now, but no, my cats are not
declawed. And no, I do not approve of declawing. And despite some
confusion that apparently exists on the subject in the UK, declawing,
while legal in most of the US, is also widely disapproved of, strongly
discouraged by humane societies, breeders, and veterinarians. And, in
fifty years of life, I've personally known only two people who have
ever had cats declawed--one cat each, and in those cases, it wasn't to
protect the furniture. I didn't agree with the decision in either
case, but it wasn't furniture they were trying to protect.

> OTOH, I do actively discourage it where possible, & I get quite peeved
> when they climb on the top in the kitchen;only one particular top, but
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> anyone else). It is out of hand, & we should know better than to
> attack one another in here.

Sheelagh, I'm sorry, but I have to judge Bookie by what she actually
says--especially when she does it over and over again. I'm sure she
didn't intend to "provoke" anyone; I think she takes it for grranted
that her amazingly insulting views of Americans are uncontroversial
fact, and is always surprised (but not daunted in her certainty) when
she's challenged on it or any of her "facts" are disputed.

> There are far more important things we could be talking about without
> giving in to what is clearly exactly what the trolls want. We are
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> but more to the point, so true, that you had to laugh when you got
> through them;o)

If Matthew will post them, I'll be happy to read them and laugh.

> I think we can do better than this...don't you?

Hey, a lot of the time we do. But do you think you might consider
directing some of this lecture to _Bookie_, and assigning some of the
responsibility to her habitual demeaning and insulting of another
country?

Lis
bookie - 03 Jun 2007 00:11 GMT
> > > > > > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 142 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

sooooooooooooo sorry you americans take yourselves so bloody
seriously, were you not aware that pretty much the rest of the world
think you as a nation are a bunch of inbred, ignorant warmongerers?
were you not aware of how much the rest of the world laughs at you all
and think you're all morons? ignorance is bliss isn't it? at least we
brits can laugh at ourselves when required, we can take a bit of a dig
at the way we live and admit that some aspects of our society as far
from perfect, can't say teh same about you yanks.

anyway, no law against hating americans and considering them to be not
even worthy enough for me to wipe my feet on? what do you expect when
you reply to people in the tones you have been above

dear oh dear oh dear
Matthew - 03 Jun 2007 00:44 GMT
>> > > > > > <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 178 lines]
>
> dear oh dear oh dear

Thanks Bookie  I am an American even more than that I am part Native
American
sheelagh - 03 Jun 2007 00:55 GMT
> >> > > > > > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 183 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text
bookie - 04 Jun 2007 03:45 GMT
> >> > > > > > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 183 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

good for you!
MaryL - 03 Jun 2007 04:37 GMT
> sooooooooooooo sorry you americans take yourselves so bloody
> seriously, were you not aware that pretty much the rest of the world
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> dear oh dear oh dear

Wow!  You certainly are good at overgeneralizations.  You're right, there's
no law against hating Americans and considerting them to be not even worthy
enough for you to wipe your feet on.  On the other hand, there's also no law
that would prohibit you (and some others on the newsgroup) from using a
little courtesy.

MaryL
reeper - 03 Jun 2007 12:22 GMT
On Jun 2, 11:37 pm, "MaryL" <stanco...@yahoo.comTAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER>
> Wow!  You certainly are good at overgeneralizations.  You're right, there's
> no law against hating Americans and considerting them to be not even worthy
> enough for you to wipe your feet on.  On the other hand, there's also no law
> that would prohibit you (and some others on the newsgroup) from using a
> little courtesy.

courtesy and common sense

it takes an ignorant so an so to mistreat a stranger

IOW's :D you ain't lost nothin MaryL

ok, so we lost the adoration of one constipated pale writer
Fred G. Mackey - 03 Jun 2007 18:35 GMT
> sooooooooooooo sorry you americans take yourselves so bloody
> seriously, were you not aware that pretty much the rest of the world
> think you as a nation are a bunch of inbred, ignorant warmongerers?

LOL - Say what you want.  You're just jealous.
And besides Vietnam, I cannot think of any war in recent memory in which
 the Brits weren't fighting alongside the US - unless you include the
Falklands War which was just another desperate attempt by the UK to hold
onto the remains of their once mighty and vast empire.  In this case,
they were defending an island populated mainly by sheep.

> were you not aware of how much the rest of the world laughs at you all
> and think you're all morons?

We laugh at you and statements like yours prove you're morons.

>  ignorance is bliss isn't it? at least we
> brits can laugh at ourselves when required, we can take a bit of a dig
> at the way we live and admit that some aspects of our society as far
> from perfect, can't say teh same about you yanks.

That's because you're ignorant - Is it as blissful as you say?

> anyway, no law against hating americans and considering them to be not
> even worthy enough for me to wipe my feet on? what do you expect when
> you reply to people in the tones you have been above

Heh - you should take a good look in the mirror.

> dear oh dear oh dear
sheelagh - 03 Jun 2007 19:06 GMT
> > sooooooooooooo sorry you americans take yourselves so bloody
> > seriously, were you not aware that pretty much the rest of the world
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fred...!
Don't ruin my pixel picture of you....

1.If I had said it, does that make Bookie as bad as me?
2.Do you think we all hold the same views?
3.Does that mean if Bookie said so, It is so?
4.we all laugh about each other..Fact!
5.I would like to think that not all Americans are like one of our
more tasteless posters from the USA....?
6.Does that mean if A USA troll posts something rude about me, that is
ok, because I am not a USA citizen?

7.We could all learn something from this...

How can you call Bookie for what she has to say when you are doing
exactly the same thing? Personally, I don't care if you think we are
all like that, because I know better. I don't "hate you" because you
come from somewhere different than I do - & nor do I tar you with the
same brush as someone who has made very disparaging remarks about me,
or the country I live in, simply because that someone comes from the
USA either......

My point here is that we are all different & most of us have differing
views on things, but that is not a good reason to class everyone as
the same as the person who might have offended you.

Mary just has a better way of saying it than I do:o)
S;o)
MaryL - 03 Jun 2007 19:22 GMT
>> > sooooooooooooo sorry you americans take yourselves so bloody
>> > seriously, were you not aware that pretty much the rest of the world
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> Mary just has a better way of saying it than I do:o)
> S;o)

Not always ... but thanks!  One problem with the Internet is that we often
sit down and write something without giving it enough thought, then hit the
send button -- and it's instantly out there in cyberspace, whereas snail
mail at least would give us time to give it "a second thought" and re-write
(or possibly destroy) what we had just written.

MaryL
sheelagh - 03 Jun 2007 19:24 GMT
On 3 Jun, 19:22, "MaryL" <stanco...@yahoo.comTAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER>
wrote:

> >> > sooooooooooooo sorry you americans take yourselves so bloody
> >> > seriously, were you not aware that pretty much the rest of the world
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Exactly:o)

S.
Lilah Morgan - 03 Jun 2007 20:16 GMT
> Not always ... but thanks!  One problem with the Internet is that we often
> sit down and write something without giving it enough thought, then hit the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> MaryL

I'll second that(or would it be third/fourth/whatever-th?). I definitely
myself have been guilty of that lately. Been so busy with things lately,
that when I get online, I'm either A: snappy because there's so much to do
and I want some me time, but knowing it's just taking me away from doing
things that need to get done, and feeling like I don't have a right to me
time makes me crankier, or B: so rushed I just type out the first thing that
comes to mind in reply to posts, and then later on when I'm doing something
else, realize I should have phrased it much better. Today was supposed to be
a rest day where I could relax and take a deep breath, but I've already done
the last tier to our pond thing. There was a big hole with an old/dead stump
in it that I started the pond in, then it started overflowing, so I dug a
slightly smaller pond below it(it's on a slope), then THAT started
overflowing, so I made the absolutely last little pond today below that, and
made it so the first two 'ponds' only drain into the others when they reach
a certain point. Now I'm off to dig up an area for a 'potato patch' and
transplant some strawberries. That's a rest day for me. And no matter what
day it is, when I get up, first thing I gotta do is take out all the dogs,
then water everything, then feed the dogs/cat their morning meal(they get
fed twice a day) and give the chickens/geese/bunnies their daily meals. Then
I get some coffee and a breather. Oh that reminds me, I gotta clean out the
litter box today. Snail mail...I haven't done that in ages. Mostly what I
write lately are shopping/to do lists ;-)
bookie - 04 Jun 2007 03:51 GMT
> > > sooooooooooooo sorry you americans take yourselves so bloody
> > > seriously, were you not aware that pretty much the rest of the world
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

to be perfectly honest, most americans are not really worth me
expending any energy actually hating, they just don't deserve me
spending that emotion on them, so guys please don't flatter yourselves
thinking that you actually are worthy of my loathing because the vast
majority aren't.

anyway, i really can't believe you all give a sh.t what I think of
you, although it does amuse when you all get so worked about it,
especially when that is really not what this newgroup is here for
(discussion about cats in case anyone had forgotten)
Matthew - 04 Jun 2007 05:40 GMT
>> > > sooooooooooooo sorry you americans take yourselves so bloody
>> > > seriously, were you not aware that pretty much the rest of the world
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
> especially when that is really not what this newgroup is here for
> (discussion abo