"Ozgirl" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "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."*********

I think she just wants to be another dogpiler.