>Anything you do is really "cruel" according to someone it the world.
>However I have always used a water bottle (water in it) and spray her
>everytime you see her on the counter and say no! I know someone would
>say that is cruel too, but oh well.
>Sara
>From your repeated insistence that it is cruel and does in fact cause pain,
>is it safe to assume that you have worked with the device (or similar) or
>done any type of research to substantiate your accusations? No? Well I
>have, as has the manufacturer whom I know quite well. The device causes no
>more pain than my clock radio causes me at 5am.
You compared this to a Fire Alarm for the cat's ears. I'm sure if I
replaced your Alarm Clock with a Fire Alarm, it WOULD cause you a
great deal of pain. Fire alarms drive me nuts, and they cause my ears
to ache within a very short time span. Your analogy is comparing
apples to buildings - the two situations you are comparing have
nothing in common.
> Unpleasant, yes. Alarming, yes. Painful, no. In truth, you could get similar results by hooking a
>clock radio to a motion detector. But that would annoy the heck out of the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>occurences of young female humans who have reported being able to hear the
>signal.
No, that isn't of any consequence to me. Putting it up in the
ultrasonic frequency area just causes the cat more pain/irritation.
Why can't we just coexist with our feline friends? When I catch my
kitty somewhere I don't want him, I just give him a stern NO and take
him off whatever it is he shouldn't be on. He's going to do and go
where he wants regardless.
Odor Destroyer - 25 Oct 2004 02:03 GMT
NobodyMan,
You have grasped onto an analogy that I made and decided to ride that
horse till it's dead. You neither have, nor do you seek, any facts,
experience, or data to invalidate or confirm your assertations. You speak
from a position of ignorance, and it appears that you do so willingly.
Since you have no intention of letting the facts distort your perception of
reality, I see no reason to discuss this issue any further.
Philip
http://www.OdorDestroyer.com
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:45:27 GMT, "Odor Destroyer"
<service.REMOVEME@odordestroyer.com> wrote:
>From your repeated insistence that it is cruel and does in fact cause pain,
>is it safe to assume that you have worked with the device (or similar) or
>done any type of research to substantiate your accusations? No? Well I
>have, as has the manufacturer whom I know quite well. The device causes no
>more pain than my clock radio causes me at 5am.
You compared this to a Fire Alarm for the cat's ears. I'm sure if I
replaced your Alarm Clock with a Fire Alarm, it WOULD cause you a
great deal of pain. Fire alarms drive me nuts, and they cause my ears
to ache within a very short time span. Your analogy is comparing
apples to buildings - the two situations you are comparing have
nothing in common.
> Unpleasant, yes. Alarming, yes. Painful, no. In truth, you could get
> similar results by hooking a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>occurences of young female humans who have reported being able to hear the
>signal.
No, that isn't of any consequence to me. Putting it up in the
ultrasonic frequency area just causes the cat more pain/irritation.
Why can't we just coexist with our feline friends? When I catch my
kitty somewhere I don't want him, I just give him a stern NO and take
him off whatever it is he shouldn't be on. He's going to do and go
where he wants regardless.
NobodyMan - 26 Oct 2004 00:18 GMT
>NobodyMan,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Philip
>http://www.OdorDestroyer.com
Fine. I read this differently; you've been backed into a corner
having painted yourself there with false logic and bad analogies. Now
you are going to take your toys and go home.
Whatever.
If I am ignorant it is merely because YOU haven't presented enough
facts about your device. I based my comments on how YOU described it
and how the cat would perceive it.
For you enlightenment, I do have extensive knowledge on how sounds
affect the environment. I do have some idea of what I am talking
about.
I guess, though, that you are right. This thread is dead.
Odor Destroyer - 25 Oct 2004 02:16 GMT
For the rest of those follwing this thread;
> You compared this to a Fire Alarm for the cat's ears. I'm sure if I
> replaced your Alarm Clock with a Fire Alarm, it WOULD cause you a
> great deal of pain. Your analogy is comparing
> apples to buildings - the two situations you are comparing have
> nothing in common.
The analogy may in fact be comparing apples to oranges, but you must also
understand that I'm trying to describe what something that a human cannot
ever hear sounds like. Kind of like trying to describe a symphony orchestra
to a deaf man. I chose the analogy of a smoke alarm because if you plot it
on an audiometer the warbling pattern looks similar to that of a smoke
alarm. A CatScram can't possibly sound like an actual smoke alarm since
they operate in two completely audio ranges.
>Putting it up in the
> ultrasonic frequency area just causes the cat more pain/irritation.
"Ultrasonic" defines a region of the audio spectrum relative to the human
capability to discern sound. 25khz is not ultrasonic to a cat, it is in
fact well within the normal feline audio range. To say that the device is
"ultrasonic" to a cat, is as incorrect as saying that the upper range of a
gifted singer is "ultrasonic" to a human.
The frequency of a sound has nothing to do with it's ability to cause pain
and/or ear damage. Pain and/or ear damage are a result of audio pressure or
as we more commonly call it "volume". An ultrasonic signal (25khz) at 60db
would cause no pain at all, while a bass drum (60hz) at 140db could burst
your eardrums. To assert that a signal is somehow dangerous because of of
it's frequency is simply not factual.
Philip
http://www.OdorDestroyer.com