aee1...@yahoo.com wrote:
AJ wrote:
I'm sorry that David is facing this situation and I'm sorry if he
doesn't have people to talk to about it, but it is inappropriate
for this forum and, in the past, he has posted things about his
cats,
which were very disturbing.
My heart goes out to him and the cat. I just don't want to
1) read about it on alt.fashion, labeled OT or not, or 2) know
about it at all.
It's quite simple then, don't open the post. The title's right
there,
if you're not interested in a topic, why are you reading it? People
before have posted here before about having to put a pet to sleep, or
a
pet dying, or getting a new pet, because there are a lot of pet
lovers
here. This really isn't any different. There are a lot of
nonfashion
related posts in this newsgroup, I don't really see what the big deal
over this one is. You should feel good, I would think, David said it
was your earlier post that spurred him on to go and try to work out
the
situation with the vet in order to keep his beloved kitty.
With all due respect, I think you are misguided on a number of points.
1. It's not wrong to read all newsgroup posts. Indeed, like AJ, I
tend to read all of them too. If you post OT or flamebait (see #2),
then you should be prepared to take the consequences.
2. This is flamebait. David's history of a pet owner is
welldocumented on a.f, and it's a shocking, disturbing, shameful
history. It's all here: http://tinyurl.com/4znas
If you missed it the first time, here are the salient points. He
adopted a kitten and "i wasn't the most patient owner, and i did a fair
amount of scolding, and i swatted (read: smacked the sh*t out of) her
more than once." Surprise, surprise, the cat had behavorial problems
and he decided he needed to get rid of this cat. After all, he made a
mess of it, so the easiest thing to do was to just avoid the problem
and get rid of the cat.
He knows damn well he upset a lot of people with that. And he
knows that people will remember. But he needs attention and so he's
posted this. Oh, he writes so pathetically, pity me, pity the poor
guy who has to give up his cat. Maybe some of you actually offered him
money in private email. Would that you knew this before you did.
Would that the people at the vet's office knew how he beat that poor,
defenseless kitten. There would be no payment plan. There would be no
"sneaking" the cat out the back door. Indeed, there would be no pets
at all at that household, ever, just as it should be.
People who beat animals, like people who beat children, are mentally
ill. I don't care that he claims he doesn't do it anymore (although he
did admit he was still abusing the cat, just not "smack[ing] the ****"
out of it anymore: "when i discipline her now, i just lightly smack
her on the
behind, and not in the face." Because, you know, it's OK to hit an
animal as long as you don't smack it around really hard. Just as
people who abuse children should not be allowed around children, people
who abuse animals should not be allowed around animals, let alone to be
responsible for their health and wellbeing.
The sight of people treating him as if he were some kind of St. Francis
of Assisi sickens me. I said it before and I'll say it again: the
most humane thing he could do for all of his pets is to give them all
up and to get psychological help for whatever it is that caused him to
abuse the poor cat in the first place.
I don't have pets and yet I know that having a pet is a privilege and
it carries with it responsiblities, not unlikebut not equal
tohaving a child. To abuse such a creature becase you have other
issues you aren't dealing with is something I personally find very
upsetting in its incredible selfishness. If you cannot take care of an
animal in such a way that precludes your beating it, than you should
not own a pet. Work out your issues related to needing love in some
other way. Don't make a poor defenseless animal pay for your
inadequacy.