"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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

Well I don't feel dogpiled. The reactions are just par for the course
and totally expected. If I said white was white not black everyone would
just know that I really meant white was black and that I just wanted to
kill their neighbour's ex's sister in law.
>