TheBigHurt35

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 04:11 PM) And yea.. I am being condescending because I thought after I cleared up my response you continued to question my explanation. Really.. I don't give a crap what language you or anyone else uses to spew your hate here. I don't judge people based on their comments.. and I don't go around posting that others think they are better than others when they don't agree with me or choose to take a higher road. I think that's ignorant. (1) I haven't "spewed hate" anywhere in this thread. (2) If you "don't judge people," why are you labeling them as hate-spewers? QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 04:19 PM) I added some further comments above. But I'll add one more.. if YOU have a problem with MY responses then maybe YOU should ignore them. Others, as I have seen a million times here, have questioned others responses without calling them names. Maybe try that.. ya know.. to avoid future problems.. Perhaps cutting out the condescending rhetoric ("stupid ass assumption", "I've corrected you") will give people like me less incentive to call you a ridculously benign name like "Queen Steff." If you put that in the "name-calling" category, wow, you're really reaching. It's in your freaking avatar and sig line, for Christ's sake! I have no desire to hold a grudge against you and I'm through discussing this matter.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 04:11 PM) Ahh.. I didn't know there was a rule that a response had to be specific to the previous quote. Mods.. can we get that in the "rule" listing please.. Lots of times that mistake is made.. usually isn't such a big deal. Well.. I'm really sorry that posting my opinion out of sequence and in error as a response to your post has upset you so badly. I'll be sure to be extra careful in the future when responding to your posts. Actually, it hasn't upset me, but feel free to think so if it makes you feel better. I was just offering a common-sense suggestion to avoid future problems... and nothing more.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 03:42 PM) Is there a reason you're acting like such a child..? The next time that you offer a "general response" (i.e., not directed at any one person), I'd suggest that you not quote someone else's post in your response. The entire purpose of that is to make a specific response and most reasonable people will assume that your comments are directed towards them. And don't make condescending remarks towards that person for making the logical conclusion. That serves no purpose but to make you look "childish," as you say.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 03:34 PM) To correct you, again... I'm not the Queen around here.. So, the crown in your avatar is from Burger King? Gotcha.

Sorry, never heard of it.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 03:27 PM) Ahh.. so you know what was going on in my brain.. cool. Nevertheless.. you've been corrected. Gee, thanks for "correcting" me, Queen Steff. You're such a swell gal. :rolly

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 03:13 PM) I made the same comment in response to QP's comment.. it was a general comment and an opinion. It's not always about you BH... sometime people just hit reply and post an opinion. But you made a conscious decision to reply to MY post, not to "just hit reply and post an opinion." That's why the assumptions were made.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 02:47 PM) No.. I don't think anyone's usage of the word indicates they are any better or worse than anyone else. If language usage was an indication of intelligence around here.. I imagine those with stock in Pampers would be much richer than they already are. Quite frankly.. I don't care what anyone else does. It's something I would not do. Which is why I said... "Men rape women but I don't call them all rapists and say "eff you" when they die." OK, fair enough. That doesn't explain why you made that comment in direct response to one of my posts, but whatever. Regarding the use of language and IQ, I once took a religion class taught by a rabbi who would often refer to the leader of Nazi Germany as "that f***ing asshole Hitler." I'll go out on a limb and say that a Distinguished Professor and Department Head at a Big 10 University is probably more intelligent than either of us.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 02:40 PM) Men rape women but I don't call them all rapists and say "eff you" when they die. And the obvious implication is that your choice to not throw the f-bomb at a poor excuse for a human being is somehow "better" than the response that some of us have made to the news of Ms. Dworkin's death. I could be wrong, but I don't see any other reason for the latter half of your comment.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 02:31 PM) That's the second time today you've given your own meaning to someone's words and made some stupid ass assumption. If you don't understand what someone means, ask. No, it's the second time today that I've dealt with an unsolicited, condescending remark about something that I said. Care to explain that comment?

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 12:30 PM) And factual based on some of your reactions. Men do rape women... yet I don't call all of them rapists and say "ef you" when they die. Well, then I guess you're just a better human being than us. Give yourself a big pat on the back. :rolly

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 10:51 AM) I wouldn't assume the home run porch is dead. The story contradicts itself when it says the renovation is done while they are still changing the seats. The out of town scoreboard is going to be changed. I always assumed they were waiting until they erected the porch, because it would have to be moved. Agreed about the seats. IMO, it won't really be "finished" until at least next spring. Why they decided issue this press release is beyond me.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 11:42 AM) But what she preached was NOT feminism--it was about female superiority. Well, she's correct when that logic is applied to cooking and cleaning. :ducks:

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 11:38 AM) I wouldn't have a sig if it wasn't for women. I'd be spending money on Vaseline if it weren't for women!

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 11:33 AM) no, but it kind of proves her point about men as aggressors, huh? No, it doesn't. If anything, the reaction from the men in this thread clearly show that she's the aggressor.

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 11:21 AM) Often the girl regretted having the sex afterward, but sometimes it was a case of her being so drunk she didn't know exactly what she was doing. This is a gray area. I remember a few years back where a male student at Brown University was accused of rape and basically black-balled at the school because he had sex with a girl who apparently wanted to, but later she said she was too drunk to know what she was doing. She also said the guy knew she was too intoxicated to know what she was doing. Gray area indeed. Moral of the story: Save the sex for when you're sober. At the very least, it's more enjoyable.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 10:51 AM) In my city it is just against the rules to let your cats roam around. IMO, that would be a better option than allowing cats to be "hunted." After someone's collared/tagged pet is accidentally shot, the lawsuits will begin. Someone else brought up this argument and I disagree. My next-door-neighbor's dog makes a hell of a lot more noise than any cat I've heard. So, are we supposed to pass legislation that makes owners keep their dogs inside with the windows constantly shut?

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 10:20 AM) Gotcha.. Well.. I stick by my initial suggestion.. collar your cats if they are outside. I agree that it would be best to collar/tag outdoor cats. One of mine goes outside every now and again (and I'm out there watching him), so I don't bother putting anything around his neck. My point is that, from what I read in this article, they're doing a very poor job of differentiating feral and domesticated outdoor cats. In addition, outdoor cats tend to roam quite a bit and I don't see how these "hunters" are going to be able to see a collar on a cat that's, say, hiding in a bush. Frankly, I think that many of them wouldn't even care enough to check. If the feral cat problem is THAT bad, it would be better just to outlaw "outdoor cats" from traveling past one's premesis. That way, they could effectively deal with the problem without putting domesticated pets at risk.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 10:16 AM) If they are ever cared for by humans I think they are always considered domestic... no? That's not necessarily true. From Merrian-Webster online... (Link) feral 2 a: not domesticated or cultivated, b: having escaped from domestication and become wild

QUOTE(mreye @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 10:09 AM) Did I miss the part about feral cats in the article? If a cat is not domesticated, it's feral by definition. Most stray cats either are or soon become feral.

QUOTE(mreye @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 10:04 AM) They're on their way to being. Why do you think they don't want you to "feed the bears?" They don't want them to become domesticated. Feral cats are, by definition, NOT domesticated. feral: not domesticated or cultivated, having escaped from domestication and become wild

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 09:58 AM) A cat outside without a collar is against the law.. Maybe where you live, but not everywhere.

QUOTE(mreye @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 09:56 AM) domesticate do·mes·ti·cate 2 : to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans It doesn't mean "house pet" It doesn't mean "outdoor pet A "stray" is domesticated. So, I guess that wild birds are "domesticated" as well, since they visit the bird feeder in my backyard and nest in the trees that I planted on my property? Like wild birds, feral cats are not "in intimate association with... humans." By definition, "feral" means "not domesticated."

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 09:56 AM) the second part of the statement clearly states that a cat with a collar will not be targeted. Perhaps it could inferred that way but, legally-speaking, that's not what it says. Take-home message: Don't move to Wisconsin if you own a cat.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 13, 2005 -> 09:50 AM) Outdoor cats that are family pets should be wearing collars - just as indoor ones should. To have an outdoor cat without one is irresponsible. Unless they're microchipped, as my cats are. There's nothing irresponsible about that.