On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:45:12 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"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.


This is now your new favorite word?

Evelyn