cat - CAT LADY WANTED

CatBanter (http://www.catbanter.com/index.php)

- Cat anecdotes (http://www.catbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - CAT LADY WANTED (http://www.catbanter.com/showthread.php?t=89604)

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

I arrange my newsgroup messages by "Subject", so I read all those under
each title-heading before progressing to the next one. This title came
well ahead of the one about his dead cat.

Individual posts on a thread often don't arrive in the same order at
everyone's news server, nor necessarily in the order they were posted.
So even if you got the personals post first, that doesn't mean it was
the first one he posted.

Of course, it's also possible that he *did* post the personals ad first,
even though I got the cat post first. :) However, I also saw several
responses to the cat post before I saw any responses to the personal ad
(or the post itself), which means that several other people got the cat
post first, too. So I'm inclined to think that the cat post was first.

But this might explain why some people are more sympathetic and willing
to give the guy (who is probably long gone by now) the benefit of the
doubt, and others are less so. If I had seen the personal ad first,
without any prior knowledge of this person, I would've most likely
thought, "Who is this clown?"

--
Joyce

To email me, remove the triple-X from my user name. ^..^

tanadashoes wrote:

Personally, I don't care what you do, so long as all parties are consenting
and no children or animals are involved. That being said, there is no way
I'd consider incest as consenting as one party is in a dominance position
either real or implied.

Well, I certainly hope you didn't think I was saying that I would condone
that. I've been close to people who were incest survivors, and they were
total emotional train wrecks - addicted, suicidal, incapable of functioning.
It's not just harmful to the child at the time of the abuse. It's a wound
that lasts a lifetime.

But we were talking about fantasies, stories and role-playing, which,
unless you know and can prove otherwise, involves only consenting adults.

I think too many people are entirely swayed by their emotional reactions.
That's not surprising, because it's a pretty emotional issue. But it's
important to think objectively, too. Not instead of, but *in addition*
to emotions. So even if you have a knee-jerk reaction of, "Eww, gross"
about people having incest fantasies (to be honest, I have that reaction,
too), I think it's important to step back and say, "OK, I think this
is disgusting, but is it actually WRONG? Is anyone actually being hurt
by this?"

Of course, everyone's entitled to their reactions, and I am certainly
not saying that you shouldn't be grossed out if you are. But I think
that's different from labeling someone a pervert and thinking they
should be investigated by the police, or not allowed to share fantasies
or role-playing with others.

--
Joyce

To email me, remove the triple-X from my user name. ^..^

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"

What you speak of is a television program, hopitus. Real life
isn't like this.

Only because "real life" CSI's don't have much of the sophisticated
equipment the fictional ones do, and test results take considerably
longer than when the "results" must manifest during the time-frame of a
sixty-minute show. One of my fellow residents in my retirement center
used to do autopsies for a medical examiner. He agrees that the TV
shows are not realistic, but only because a) in addition to the less
than ideal lab equipment, the necessary time-periods required are much
longer, and b) the actual solution rate for violent crimes is not nearly
the 100% our favorite shows may lead us to believe.

Also, on CSI, DNA testing is always the gold standard for any kind of
proof. As they like to say, and they say it often, "DNA doesn't lie".
However, I gather (from various things I've read), that this isn't always
true. That it's a lot harder to get DNA evidence and matches in real life
than these shows make it seem.

It's true that many prisoners have been exonerated because DNA tests
prove them innocent (after losing years or decades of their lives in
prison on a wrong conviction), so I'm not saying we shouldn't use DNA
tests. It's just that the technology isn't nearly as perfect as the
shows like to portray it. Also, DNA is a pretty fragile molecule, so
it degrades quickly. So it's a lot harder to get definitive evidence
from an old corpse or a stray hair or whatever, than it seems to be on
these shows.

I still love them, though! :)

--
Joyce

To email me, remove the triple-X from my user name. ^..^

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Very little, since (according to law enforcement) one frequently leads
to the other!

How would law enforcement know and why would you believe them in
preference to those who actually study the problem?
--

Wayne M.

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

I think police statistics in most large cities would refute that
statement.

How? Police don't keep statistics on how many people entertain incest
fantasies that they never act upon.

(Also psychiatrists whose practice includes sex-offenders.)

Psychiatrists in clinical practice also do not collect such statistics.
It's behavioral psychologists and sociologists who are likely to conduct
the kind of population studies that do collect such information.

So far, such studies have failed to find any statistically significant
criminogenic influence for either pornography or fantasy.
--

Wayne M.

wrote in message
...

You are so right. Forty years ago, everyone would've been calling
gay people perverts, but now the only people who say that are
frothing anti- gay fanatics. Most decent people have learned by now
that there's nothing perverted about it. But it seems like people
have to learn the same lessons over and over, every time some new
idea is presented.

I've got to take exception here. I was raised in what many would
consider a very narrow minded church. And no way would it have been
acceptable for my generation, or my parents, or my grandparents to
call gay people perverts. Granted, don't ask, don't tell, and mind
your own business were pretty much the order of the day.

I was a bit surprised as an adult to find how generally accepting my
parents attitudes were once discussion of the subject became more
open.

So I can't believe everyone felt, much less talked that way forty
years ago.

Granted information and attitudes have changed. But condemnation has
never been universal.

Jo

Jofirey wrote:

wrote in message

You are so right. Forty years ago, everyone would've been calling
gay people perverts...

I've got to take exception here. I was raised in what many would
consider a very narrow minded church. And no way would it have been
acceptable for my generation, or my parents, or my grandparents to
call gay people perverts. Granted, don't ask, don't tell, and mind
your own business were pretty much the order of the day.

I was a bit surprised as an adult to find how generally accepting my
parents attitudes were once discussion of the subject became more
open.

So I can't believe everyone felt, much less talked that way forty
years ago.

Granted information and attitudes have changed. But condemnation has
never been universal.

OK, I take back my use of the word "everyone". I tend to say this
colloquially, often forgetting that some people take it literally.
Sorry!

I certainly remember when gay people were called perverts. I think
I'm younger than you are, so it's probably not a matter of the times,
but rather the place. I grew up in a small town, and I heard expressions
of bigotry against lots of people, including Jews, blacks, gay people,
"cripples", whomever.

Anyway, my point is, people are very quick to judge other people's
private activities when they're different and they don't understand
them. And there's no place where this is more true than in the area
of sexuality, the most private of activities (mostly :)). Why do
people feel the need to judge any sexual activity between consenting
adults? You don't have to like it, you might even think it's weird and
gross, but that doesn't mean the person is doing anything wrong. Many
people seem unable make that distinction. "It's wrong because *I* don't
like it." Following that logic, if I ruled the world, asparagus, sushi,
American football, and anything colored chartreuse would be illegal. :)

--
Joyce

To email me, remove the triple-X from my user name. ^..^

On Jul 6, 11:02*pm, wrote:
Jofirey wrote:
* wrote in message

* You are so right. Forty years ago, everyone would've been calling
* gay people perverts...

* I've got to take exception here. *I was raised in what many would
* consider a very narrow minded church. *And no way would it have been
* acceptable for my generation, or my parents, or my grandparents to
* call gay people perverts. *Granted, don't ask, don't tell, and mind
* your own business were pretty much the order of the day.

* I was a bit surprised as an adult to find how generally accepting my
* parents attitudes were once discussion of the subject became more
* open.

* So I can't believe everyone felt, much less talked that way forty
* years ago.

* Granted information and attitudes have changed. *But condemnation has
* never been universal.

OK, I take back my use of the word "everyone". I tend to say this
colloquially, often forgetting that some people take it literally.
Sorry!

I certainly remember when gay people were called perverts. I think
I'm younger than you are, so it's probably not a matter of the times,
but rather the place. I grew up in a small town, and I heard expressions
of bigotry against lots of people, including Jews, blacks, gay people,
"cripples", whomever.

Anyway, my point is, people are very quick to judge other people's
private activities when they're different and they don't understand
them. And there's no place where this is more true than in the area
of sexuality, the most private of activities (mostly :)). Why do
people feel the need to judge any sexual activity between consenting
adults? You don't have to like it, you might even think it's weird and
gross, but that doesn't mean the person is doing anything wrong. Many
people seem unable make that distinction. "It's wrong because *I* don't
like it." Following that logic, if I ruled the world, asparagus, sushi,
American football, and anything colored chartreuse would be illegal. :)

--
Joyce

To email me, remove the triple-X from my user name. *^..^

There are as many different definitions of "wrong", as there are
people you can ask.
Morally, legally, and Biblically are a few. Many times it isn't simply
an issue of "I don't like it."
It's a deep-seated belief. Using an adulterous relationship as an
example straight from the link Hop posted,
It's not likely you're going to change an conservative person's
opinion on that issue.
They, also, have a right to their beliefs. And most people truly
don't want to judge anyone. In fact,
I don't *want* to judge anyone's sexual activity. I simply don't want
to hear about it. I'd rather respect the
person for what he is, a co-worker, judge him on the way he treats
people at work, and the quality of
his work.
As for homosexuality, I don't think anyone should be "in the closet
either"; but I would expect that person to be able
to present himself/herself for what he/she *and* partner is, and be
treated with respect and equality. That's as far as it goes. No one,
either hetero or gay, should force too many private details of their
lives on co-workers, unless you're a co-worker with a very close
friend-relationship. What I mean is, it's not appropriate breakroom
banter.
You're right that many people are quick to judge other people's
private activities. Maybe that's one reason the details
of those activities should remain private.
When it's incest, I can't budge too much one that one. Fantasizing,
looking at porn,
roleplaying, sorry, it's wrong on every level that I can think of. If
someone told me at work they had sexual fantasies about
children, I'd avoid them like the plague. For anyone who thinks
there's nothing wrong with that, that he's hurting absolutely
no one, and probably won't graduate to molesting real children, would
you let them near your children, or any children at all,
for that matter?
Sherry

Sherry

hopitus wrote:
...
Forgive me, ladies, but why are we still attempting to decipher
what
the troll posted first/last here? ...
Matt and I are of the same mind: suspicious. First thing I do
is go up
and click on that tiny"profile" word... ...all there for anyone
to see,
where they've been posting lately...

"Profiles" are only available if the interface being used to view
this **USENET** Group is Google Groups. Yes, I know that for some
of you, it's the only option, because of Comcast and others
removing their Usenet servers :-(

Over on news:uk.rec.competitions, they seem to be great fans of
http://news.individual.net as a client.

Microsoft used to have a tool where one could look at
pseudo-profiles, but it was a research tool, and has been
discontinued.

--
MatSav

Matt and I are of the same mind: suspicious. First thing I do
is go up and click on that tiny"profile" word... ...all there
for anyone to see, where they've been posting lately...
"Profiles" are only available if the interface being used to view
this **USENET** Group is Google Groups.

You don't need to do it that way. Anybody can use the "Advanced Group
Search" feature on Google Groups, whatever newsreader they have - it
doesn't require a Google account and gives you the same information.

But it's a bit of a pain to use and I don't do it unless I'm really
suspicious. "John"'s initial message didn't seem that far out of the
ordinary.

==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === http://www.campin.me.uk ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts