"BlueBrooke" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:24:56 +1000, "Ozgirl"
> > wrote:
>
>>Even after I have explained (many times) that the usage was correct
>>and
>>that it exists in American dictionaries and that the proper context
>>was
>>used I am still guilty of a shameful act. Its still the not what you
>>say
>>but who you are attitude that's rife in the diabetics groups.
>
> The usage is not correct. The definitions you provided that related
> to animals involved killing them. Unless you're wanting to argue that
> a cat would feel better if they were told who won the tournament, or
> if they were given the information they were waiting for.

The cat may feel better if "You could try probiotics. If you are going
to traumatise him by getting T4 blood tests why not have him sedated and
given a 5 minute ultrasound to see if there is something seriously
wrong? Trauma is trauma no matter what. Skittish or not, the cat needs
proper evaluation of his health not you playing around with his diet all
the time. You were obviously able to control him to have his blood test,
you can surely control him to have sedation."

The cat has a vomiting problem, the cat probably feels miserable, the
cat could (possibly) be put out of its misery if the cat were given
probiotics or given an ultrasound to see the true state of his guts. Is
that unacceptable to you? But I can't stop you from believing I am an
advocate for cat killing, just because... You are free to paint me
however you wish BlueBrooke. Its your right.

> When you tell someone you're giving them "a buck," they know you're
> not about to hand over a male deer. When you tell someone to "put the
> animal out of its misery," they know you're not telling them to have a
> meaningful, information-filled conversation with it.
>
> I don't know if you're "guilty of a shameful act" or not. Only you
> know that. All I know is you're wrong about the usage -- "in
> context" -- and yet continue to argue that you're not. "In context,"
> the animal is put down.

The context I am talking about is : "And how about putting that poor cat
out
of yours out of its misery. You could try probiotics. If you are going
to traumatise him by getting T4 blood tests why not have him sedated and
given a 5 minute ultrasound to see if there is something seriously
wrong? Trauma is trauma no matter what. Skittish or not, the cat needs
proper evaluation of his health not you playing around with his diet all
the time. You were obviously able to control him to have his blood test,
you can surely control him to have sedation."

Talking about putting the cat out of its misery as a stand alone
statement. i.e. ignoring what immediately follows in the paragraph is
talking out of context.
Not a hard thing to understand.
"con·text/'käntekst/
Noun:The
circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea,
and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
**********The parts of something written or spoken that immediately
precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning."*********