wrote:

<massive snip>

Thanks,btw. You know about animals, you care about
them as individuals, and you have a fine grasp of
both animal-related ethics and the bull-pucky
animal abusers present to justify themselves.

But, onward....

> You have a bird that sees its
> caretaker as its mate. The caretaker takes the bird out of its cage
> daily, at the very least. Since most uncaged birds have their flight
> wings clipped to avoid injury from walls and windows, (Flight is
> another instinct we must prevent in pet birds.), the bird hops around
> and usually winds up on the arm, head, leg or shoe of its human
> companion. Birds seek physical contact of all kinds with their
> caregiver. Sometimes, this contact turns sexual based on the mood of
> the bird. It is an unconscious impulse of the bird and I don't think
> they should be "punished" for it by being stuffed back into a cage.
> It's not as if you can train a bird or any other living being not to
> have sexual impulses.

This particular 'tiel was 16-years old and had a deformed wing.
When he was given to me, he couldn't fly at all, just flutter
to the floor. I gave him various kinds of physical therapy,
and he did get to the point where he could fly reasonably
well, but never normally. It was a question, but I ended up
not clipping his wings. He spent all day with his cage open,
going into his "sleep cage" in the spare bathroom at dusk.
He was free to move around as he wanted. He spent most of
the time I was home on my shoulder or on the cafe curtain
rod, looking out the window. He had healthy veggies or
starchy foods on his saucer with us at breakfast and at
dinner, walking around on the table while we ate. That
was usually when he decided to do his sexual thing on
the hand on the table at the time, after I'd feed him a
bite of something from his own plate, like a dark green
leaf or a bit of couscous. I think he saw it as a mate-like
gesture of food-sharing.

He was really a sweetheart.

<snip>

Karen Winter, sectarian bird-diddling "anglo catholic," reminisced:

> I gave him various kinds of physical therapy,

You jacked him off. That's not PT. And the more I read and inquire about
it, that's also not very "anglo catholic."

> and he did get to the point where he could fly reasonably
> well, but never normally.

Oversexed?

> He had healthy veggies or
> starchy foods on his saucer with us at breakfast and at
> dinner, walking around on the table while we ate. That
> was usually when he decided to do his sexual thing on
> the hand on the table at the time,

AT THE TABLE WHILE YOU WERE TRYING TO EAT BREAKFAST AND YOU LET IT GO
ON? Did you at least wash up when he was done? You keep snipping that
question, but I have a feeling you didn't wash. Am I right?

> after I'd feed him a
> bite of something from his own plate, like a dark green
> leaf or a bit of couscous. I think he saw it as a mate-like
> gesture of food-sharing.

Doesn't really matter since YOU still apparently do.

> He was really a sweetheart.

And you're really depraved.

chico chupacabra wrote:

> Glorfindel reminisced:

>> I gave him various kinds of physical therapy,

> You jacked him off.

You have a dirty mind and no understanding of bird
psychology or biology.

>That's not PT.

No, indeed. However what I did for him was indeed
physical therapy. I worked on gently stretching his
wing as far as it would go, and helping him build up
his stamina. First, I held him over a soft surface
like the bed and released him to flutter to the bed.
As he got stronger, a friend and I would hold him
above the bed and gently "throw" him to each other,
so he would have to fly a short distance but wouldn't
hurt himself if he fell. Later, we would stand at
opposite sides of the room, later ends of the hall,
and call him, or lure him with a treat, to try to
fly from one of us to the other, gradually
increasing the distance. He eventually could
fly the whole length of the house, but only with
considerable effort. Normal 'tiels are so strong
and fast, many people clip their wings to
prevent injury to them or losing them if they get
out, but he was so crippled I thought it was safe
to leave him unclipped and just watch him carefully.

When we first got him, his keel was like a knife
blade -- no muscle at all. By the time we had
spent several months working with him, he had a
normal well-muscled keel and you could not feel
his keel-bone easily. He had had almost no time
out of the cage or exercise before we got him,
because his former companion had so many birds
she didn't have the time for the therapy he needed.

And the more I read and inquire about
> it, that's also not very "anglo catholic."

Compassion and care for the crippled and needy
"least of these" is very Anglo-Catholic -- or
simply, what someone concerned for animals
would do.

>> and he did get to the point where he could fly reasonably
>> well, but never normally.

> Oversexed?

No. In fact, he was rather old and not particularly
highly sexed -- he was just a normal, unaltered bird
imprinted on humans as a chick.

>> He had healthy veggies or
>> starchy foods on his saucer with us at breakfast and at
>> dinner, walking around on the table while we ate. That
>> was usually when he decided to do his sexual thing on
>> the hand on the table at the time,

> AT THE TABLE WHILE YOU WERE TRYING TO EAT BREAKFAST AND YOU LET IT GO
> ON?

Why not?

> Did you at least wash up when he was done? You keep snipping that
> question,

Because it's stupid and offensive. Yes, I did -- but how much
semen do you think an old 'tiel produces, anyway? You'd
get your hand messier dripping butter off your piece of
toast.

<snip>

>> after I'd feed him a
>> bite of something from his own plate, like a dark green
>> leaf or a bit of couscous. I think he saw it as a mate-like
>> gesture of food-sharing.

> Doesn't really matter since YOU still apparently do.

It's helpful to encourage a bird to eat healthy human
foods if you eat a bite yourself first, to show the
bird it's good, then feed a small amount to the bird.
The tiel wasn't too fond of veggies, but they were good
for him, so I would hold up a leaf like a toy, and get
him to nibble it. It's part of flock behavior, how birds
normally learn to eat things.


>> He was really a sweetheart.

> And you're really depraved.

No, but you are really dirty-minded and ignorant.

Karen Winter, schismatic bird-diddling anglo catholic, whined:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> > Karen Winter, sexual abuser of small animals, reminisced:
>
> >> I gave him various kinds of physical therapy,
>
> > You jacked him off.
>
> You have a dirty mind

WTF do you call it?

> and no understanding of bird
> psychology or biology.

You don't.

> >That's not PT.
>
> No, indeed.

Stop pretending it was.

> > And the more I read and inquire about
> > it, that's also not very "anglo catholic."
>
> Compassion and care

....don't include masturbating a small, defenseless bird.

> >> and he did get to the point where he could fly reasonably
> >> well, but never normally.
>
> > Oversexed?
>
> No.

You "regularly" diddled him.

> >> He had healthy veggies or
> >> starchy foods on his saucer with us at breakfast and at
> >> dinner, walking around on the table while we ate. That
> >> was usually when he decided to do his sexual thing on
> >> the hand on the table at the time,
>
> > AT THE TABLE WHILE YOU WERE TRYING TO EAT BREAKFAST AND YOU LET IT
> > GO ON?
>
> Why not?

Because it's unethical and unsavory. At least we know what your dining
habits include.

> > Did you at least wash up when he was done? You keep snipping that
> > question,
>
> Because it's stupid and offensive.

And jacking it off at the table in the first place ISN'T?

> Yes, I did -- but how much
> semen do you think an old 'tiel produces, anyway?

I'd never know!

> <snip>
>
> >> after I'd feed him a
> >> bite of something from his own plate, like a dark green
> >> leaf or a bit of couscous. I think he saw it as a mate-like
> >> gesture of food-sharing.
>
> > Doesn't really matter since YOU still apparently do.
>
> It's helpful

It's not helpful to jack birds off at the table, Karen. I suspect you
were reared better than that given your father's rank and your
mother's pedigree from a family that screwed the Indians and had slaves.

> >> He was really a sweetheart.
>
> > And you're really depraved.
>
> No

Yes, you are.

> but you are really dirty-minded

I don't diddle animals, you do. And you do it at the table while people
(even if it was Sylvia) are eating. I'm not dirty-minded, you pervert.

> and ignorant.

That's what bestiality practitioners, S&M types, and pedophiles
always say about those who reject their perversions. You think we just
don't get it. If the problem is so widespread, Karen, don't you think
maybe YOU don't get it?

chico chupacabra wrote:

The usual drivel of those who don't understand
animals, care about animals, or have the
ability to support their side's false claims.

Of course, this whole tangent was only an effort
to obscure Leif's claim that animals never
want interspecies sexual contact. You *think*
you've managed to lose the original topic by
inventing your usual stupid anti-animal,
ignorant ad hominem attacks. What you've
done is accept my original (correct ) scientific
observation.

You guys are just plain ridiculous. You think
you are fooling people and successfully
changing the original subject, but you aren't.
People who actually know about birds -- e.g.
Feralpower and Scented Nectar -- agree you were
wrong. You *are* wrong. You are also dirty-minded,
ignorant, and unfit to own any companion animal,
particularly any bird. Google any bird care site,
and it will support Feral's and my observations on
domestic parrots. But you knew that already.

Derek's dumb tangent is simply beneath contempt --
but typical of his hysterical misrepresentations.
Anybody who watched his meltdown on this thread
would know everything he's claimed about me is
nonsense. He's either really *really* stupid, or
deliberately malicious -- and I'd say, both.

Exit, laughing....

<snip>

Karen Winter, anglo catholic bird diddler who doesn't like her son
as a person, wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> The usual drivel of those who don't understand
> animals

John Mark Karr thinks other people don't understand children, too,
Karen. Those of you who engage in perverted activities with children,
animals, etc., always claim to know so much more than everyone else.
The problem's not with everyone else. It's with you.

BTW, why haven't you replied to the post about church and why you're
too fatigued to finish what you started?

> People who actually know about birds -- e.g.
> Mary Huber and Skanky

HAHAHA! That's some expert panel you've assembled, Karen. Some violent
SF ditz and a 46 year-old pot-smoking slacker. Why didn't you go
ahead and add Lesley to the list of your experts?

> Derek's dumb tangent is simply beneath contempt --

No, he's to be commended. Your former vicars are no doubt grateful to
know what kind of people you and Sylvia really are.

> Exit, laughing....

You mean cackling, you old witch.

chico chupacabra wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>People who actually know about birds -- e.g.
>>Feralpower and Scented Nectar

> That's some expert panel you've assembled

Well, yes. Feralpower knows more about animals
and animal behavior than you ever will or could.
She has an outstanding background in both practical
and theoretical knowledge, plus a thoroughly sound
understanding of animal rights philosophy and
ethics. Unlike you, Leif, or Derek, she actually
knows what she is talking about and understands
what it means. I have tremendous respect for her.

<snip>

chico chupacabra wrote:

>>The usual drivel of those who don't understand
>>animals

Still trying to ignore the fact that you and Leif
don't understand animals, and don't know about
animals. This whole thread has been an obvious
attempt at diversion -- the worst kind of
sleazy attempted slight-of-hand to try to hide
your ignorance and error. Admit Leif was
wrong in claiming animals never voluntarily seek
out interspecies sexual activity. You don't even
have to mention what every high-school biology
student knows about imprinting in birds and
socialization in mammals on humans. Just
repeat after me: mule...coydog...wolfdog...
crossbred feline and avian species....

You *try* to turn this into an attack on me
for being a responsible bird owner. That's
because, as we all know, you have no honor
and no honesty, and you're dumb as a post
about real animals. But it doesn't work.
We see through you.

Not that I expect you to have the integrity
to accept responsibility for your lies.
Just recognize they *are* known as lies.

<snip>