"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.
>
> 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.

She also mentioned tests and treatments. And it sounded from the way Susan
was posting that she wasn't going to have the tests done on the cat lest she
stress him out.