 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / June 2007Naming & Shaming those who abuse cats
Reading this article seems all too common & sad as well. If only everyone who abused cats were subject to international scrutiny, perhaps they would think twice before doing this terrible act. It is beyond my comprehension as to why anyone would feel the need to perform this despicable act on defenseless kittens and cats I'm so pleased to see that just for once, the RSPCA are not going to accept this ruling lying down. It annoys me that all of their funds and donations have to be used for prosecuting morons like this, but if that is what it takes, then let them all be named and shamed. It is exactly what they deserve..... http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21912684-5001028,00.html > Reading this article seems all too common & sad as well. If only > everyone who abused cats were subject to international scrutiny, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21912684-5001028,... I agree completely. Let's start by shaming an admitted cat abuser right here in this newsgroup: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.health+behav/msg/79a6cbb6e90317fd?d mode=source > > Reading this article seems all too common & sad as well. If only > > everyone who abused cats were subject to international scrutiny, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.health+behav/msg/79a6cbb... Oh Nick... I am so pleased that you are finally showing a real concern for the cats involved in Cat-Abuse cases. As you were so kind to respond, It would be rude of me not to recognize your contribution, & I wouldn't want that. Animal abuse is a very serious issue, so the better promoted it is, the more people there are to take action if they honestly feel there is a case to be answered for, & the better off cats will be... Thank you for highlighting the case you presented. I took particular care to read the facts presented so that I could make a dispassionate conclusion before responding to you. Having read it several times, I can't find a single reason to report the person who posted this comment. The reason for this is because there is threat there. The facts, are clear. I thought the others might benefit from a post all of your own. I find it helps new members to know who you really are. http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.culture.bangladesh/browse_frm/thread/bf96ac 4852e1a183/9481ce04d7c6d66e?hl=en#9481ce04d7c6d66e I thought this post was regarding a controversial case of abuse that the rest of the members would like to share. It is good news that @ last, a Judge has recognised the rights of the cat. THIS IS GOOD NEWS, Not your personal drop in trolling group Whether you like the individual concerned here, or not is irrelevant. If any of us thought for one moment that he was in serious danger of committing such a crime;any single one of us. The least desirable comment, freely offered opinion that I could find, was this: >I broke bad! yes I did. >I grabbed Lucy by the nap of the neck and showed her what ugly was >My point is, it's never the cats fault, cats will take as much advantage as you give them All I could read here, was a man who had a bad hair day here, & he was direct enough & honest about how he felt.. He was annoyed @ the time, & was venting. I think we all have moments like that.( Maybe you don't?).... If you would care to inspect the passage again., I think you will find that he might have felt that way, but that doesn't prove a case for very unsavoury innuendo's, & deformation of character. He didn't say he hurt them, merely an opinion as to why he felt that way. Can you? Here is the proof >My point is, it's never the cats fault, cats will take as much >advantage as you give them I don't see any threat involved here. I think that he is offering an insight in the way he saw it @ the time. I don't think it insinuates anything, & the other point is that you don't like him. To offer this to the group simply shows you up to be the group sh.t stirring Troll you really are. This is not abuse. He didn't say he hurt them either. S. > The least desirable comment, freely offered opinion that I could find, > was this: > > >I broke bad! yes I did. > >I grabbed Lucy by the nap of the neck and showed her what ugly was > >My point is, it's never the cats fault, cats will take as much Really? Not surprising, given your short relationship with the written word. How about these: "I grabbed Lucy by the nap of the neck and showed her what ugly was" "If Lucy swipes a kitten, I hound her down with a broom and mutherfucking dare her to do it again... im the big cat around here, I call the shots, Im in charge" Did you intentionally omit these in deference to your *virtual* friend, or did you not understand the words? Here -- print this out and have someone read it aloud to you: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.health+behav/msg/79a6cbb6e90317fd?d mode=source > All I could read here, was a man who had a bad hair day here, & he was > direct enough & honest about how he felt.. He was annoyed @ the time, > & was venting. > I think we all have moments like that.( Maybe you don't?).... Suuure. He didn't *mean* to terrorise his pets with a broom and rough handling...'and it'll never happen again I promise honest baby'. Drunken wife beaters use that as a defence all the time. > If you would care to inspect the passage again., I think you will find > that he might have felt that way, but that doesn't prove a case for > very unsavoury innuendo's, & deformation of character. He didn't say > he hurt them, merely an opinion as to why he felt that way. Can you? "Deformation"?! Like John Merrick? ROTFLMAO Give us another, Mrs. Malaprop. > I don't see any threat involved here. I'm quite sure you don't -- or don't *want* to. He's your Usenet master, after all... > This is not abuse. He didn't say he hurt them either. No. Of course not. I'm sure that Lucy purred with joy at being grabbed "by the nap (sic) of the neck and shown what ugly was" and "hound(ed) down with a broom and mutherfucking (sic) dared to do it again". I'm sure loving cat owners grab their adult cats by the neck all the time -- and have the deep scars to prove it. Touchingly oblivious, as always. Obarry Wan has trained you well. BTW, does the name Pavlov ring a bell? > > The least desirable comment, freely offered opinion that I could find, > > was this: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > BTW, does the name Pavlov ring a bell? Oh, Believe me it has "Nothing to do with being trained"'far from it in fact.. I would have said exactly the same thing about the vast majority of the posters on this site. I believe they were careless words & would be disappointed to hear otherwise, but until then I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled to it It has nothing to do with knowing Barry. Barry is no master of mine @ all, & if you knew any better you wouldn't be saying this. As you so kindly point out, he used unwise words. However, I don't think he said anything about abusing them. It is what you assume that is the figment of your deluded imagination that motivates this hate campaign. If you really want to know what I think, it is this: I have no idea what motivates you towards Him & see no sport in trying to character assassination. You do the same to me & others here too. We just get fed up with hearing the same old thing. I would remind you..it is you that seems to follow the group, not the other way around. You are the classic unoriginal troll, totally unadulterated " Look @ MEeeeee" ----------------------------- I designed this as a motivating subject & left it open to debate as to whether the new laws that cover cats welfare, is it doing the job it was designed to do..or do others feel that it is too little too late? *I really can't be bothered to trade insults with you. I would rather abandon the Post than do any talking with you. It is the ONLY way to deal with a twisted mind of someone who's only "thrill is to try & provoke a reaction. No, I know better.. I don't want to know! & I would "RATHER" ABANDOD this post than trade anything with you. It would make me as bad as you. Just so you understood.* --------------------------------- > > The least desirable comment, freely offered opinion that I could find, > > was this: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > BTW, does the name Pavlov ring a bell? oh f.ck off you c.nt, if you have only being able to read or write for the past 2 years and have been virtually self taught then you too would make errors in language and choice of words based on how they sound. You know exactly what she meant; defamation, the fact that you are too thick to fill in the blanks here shows up your own total lack of intelligence. what a tosser, I wonder how his barry-shrine is coming along >> BTW, does the name Pavlov ring a bell? > > oh f.ck off you c.nt, ============================================================= Pavlov indeed. Ding-a-ling-a-ling goes the bell, rat-a-tat-tat-tat go Sheelagh and Bookie's fingers on the keyboard. For awhile there, a week or two ago, I thought they were learning... but it was mere wishful thinking on my part. Charlie On 16 Jun, 03:35, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com> wrote: > >> BTW, does the name Pavlov ring a bell? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Charlie That is where you are wrong Charlie. > No, I know better.. I don't want to know! & I >would "RATHER" ABANDOD this post than trade anything with you I see you failed to read my last post properly. Best Wishes. S on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:29:27 GMT, sheelagh <sheelagh_madden@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > That is where you are wrong Charlie. Uh... >> No, I know better.. I don't want to know! & I >>would "RATHER" ABANDOD this post than trade anything with you > > I see you failed to read my last post properly. The fact that you posted to the troll at all proves that Charlie is right.  SignatureLynne > on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:29:27 GMT, sheelagh <sheelagh_mad...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Lynne Yeah, your right. I should have ignored it & allowed Barry to defend himself It has nothing to do with me in this instance. I will take that on board & remember that next time he posts, that I won't stand up for anyone here. Lets face it, why would I want to ? S;o) > on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:29:27 GMT, sheelagh <sheelagh_mad...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Lynne Lynne, I re read what I wrote in that last post, & in doing so, I realised that it sounds a bit condescending. That was not my intention. I was trying to say, that if there is any fault on my behalf, I shouldn't have responded in that manner. Barry is perfectly capable of making his own response. I should have left him free to do just that, if he wished to. My apologies if it sounded any other way! S;o) on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:18:28 GMT, sheelagh <sheelagh_madden@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > Lynne, I re read what I wrote in that last post, & in doing so, I > realised that it sounds a bit condescending. That was not my > intention. Oh, hell, Sheelagh, on re-read my post sounds that way, too! I sure didn't mean it, and I never would take a post from you that way. :) SignatureLynne > on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:29:27 GMT, sheelagh <sheelagh_madden@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The fact that you posted to the troll at all proves that Charlie is right. Sigh. I am so glad some of you are willing to do this. This is one reason I chose not to have children. >> on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:29:27 GMT, sheelagh >> <sheelagh_madden@hotmail.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > This is one reason I chose not to have children. I thought it was Barry did not want any ;-) >> Sigh. I am so glad some of you are willing to do this. >> >> This is one reason I chose not to have children. >> > I thought it was Barry did not want any ;-) We've never discussed it. ;) >>> Sigh. I am so glad some of you are willing to do this. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > We've never discussed it. ;) It is a scary thought though :^) On Jun 15, 8:24 pm, the Luton Loon <emily_boo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > oh f.ck off you c.nt, if you have only being able to read or write for > the past 2 years and have been virtually self taught then you too > would make errors in language and choice of words based on how they > sound. You know exactly what she meant; defamation, the fact that you > are too thick to fill in the blanks here shows up your own total lack > of intelligence. Have an ice lolly and calm down. It's summer. > Reading this article seems all too common & sad as well. If only > everyone who abused cats were subject to international scrutiny, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21912684-5001028,... reluctantly read the article, not nice at all, personally i think the sentence he was given is still not enough, unless of course he is locked in a cell with a nutcase wielding an iron bar and he receives treatment similar to that he metted out to those poor innocent cats. What a nasty nasty c.nt, what has been said time and again previously about people who abuse and ill animals like this going on to do similar to humans and children? even if the judge doesn't give a sh.t about what happened to those poor kitties (and he should do) he should have locked the guy away for much longer on the ground of 'protecting the public' I agree that it is a dreadful waste of RSPCA funds bookie |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.