Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / June 2007
My cat had an accident - I'm sick with worry!
|
|
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 |
|