And if they can’t get rodents, or small birds, they’ll bring you a toy and deposit it on you.
What the hell is that tail in the foreground attached to, a panther?
Funny, I’m not seeing it. I still think he’s an asshole.
Well, after I posted my apology, I got a couple "you’re crazy"responses. Which is fine, my self-enhanced quote works fine in those situations: “opinions are like assholes, everyone’s stinks”. But after the huge pile-on I received, some people had to keep picking after my mea culpa (of sorts). Excalibre was the only one willing to accept it and offer an apology from his end and discuss it rather than keep attacking me. That shows a lot of maturity on his part that he would take the time to be reasonable with me. A lot of times, people like to argue and humiliate people just because. He showed me he’s above that and although it may not mean much to you, it meant a lot to me. Some people may not remember those things, but I will. Even if him and I disagree later on, I know now that I can at least talk to him in a rational way. I didn’t want to be one of those posters that people say “oh no, not PinkMarabou again”. I would hope that one day I can be a good addition to the SDMB family. That’s all. When people give me a chance, I will in turn give them a chance.
Nope, actually it’s a not very large tortie – beware the jaws of doom! Perspective, my dear Doper, perspective is all.
Now, if you want a panther-sized cat, I would suggest this model.
HOLY CANNOLI!!! That is a big pussy (cat that is)!
I’m assuming s/he is yours? Beeeyooootiful! 
:: blush ::
Why, thankee, ma’am. Yes. Yes, he is a big pussy. His brother Freddy is only a smidgen smaller, while Teddy is merely sizable.
Ah, but see, he has not shown such consideration for me. Several times I have offered him an olive branch. Several times I have offered him explanations for my posts. Several times I have offered him a chance to take back the things he said. And yet he ignores me. That, in my book, constitutes an asshole. It’s clear to me that if he hasn’t apologized by now, or at least even acknowledged my presence, then he’s an insincere pusbucket. Fuck him.
You’re right. You superciliously offered me several chances to apologize for your behavior. You made a statement over and over, and now you’re upset with me for taking it at face value. Starting from your first reference to me, you were dishonest: “Pathology, Gracie? Loving a cat is a mental illness?” when my post had indicated nothing of the sort. You also said, “And yes, her cats are her children. They are no less so just because you love your flesh babies.” Then you got angry at me when I took this statement seriously. Because, you see, when tdn says “children”, he means “things you love that are not children.”
During this thread, you described your girlfriend over and over, and got mad at anyone who responded. You turned into an aggressive asshole and started making stupid threats. You didn’t even try to speak accurately - you said things like, “They seem to think that cat lovers are a real threat to humanity somehow.” None of us had said anything even similar to this statement. You didn’t even try to actually argue a point here; instead you spent six pages lying about what your opponents were saying. You also compared me to either Ann Coulter or Al Sharpton.
The funny thing is that - in a thread where you were swearing, making threats, and continuously lying about what your opponents had said - I was perfectly civil to you. You didn’t offer the same courtesy to most of the people in the thread. I tried to argue like a civil human being. I can see at the end that I resorted to ad hominem attacks on PinkMarabou, and I’m sorry I did so. I can’t even see what you’d like me to apologize here. If it’s your girlfriend, let me repeat something I said earlier.
On the first go-round, you state that her pets were her children - the implication of this statement being that she thinks of her pets as equivalent - equal in value - to children. Apparently she doesn’t actually think that. You then tried to distract us with an irrelevant statement that she knows the difference between cats and children - when no one had suggested she didn’t (homework for tdn: learn the difference between equal and equivalent.) Personally, I think you owe your girlfriend an apology for using her as an example of a crazy thought process when she doesn’t actually think that way. I also think you owe apologies to the people you tried to threaten - you brought her into the discussion and then threw fits when folks discussed her.
I mean, you might as well have said, “My girlfriend hears voices in her head and has conversations with God.” And then had a hissy-fit when people suggested she might have schizophrenia. In the end, what you meant was, “My girlfriend uses her iPod to listen to the BBC News and she is actively spiritual and prays every day.” Would any of us owe you an apology for taking what you had said at face value? No. Of course not. If you bring your girlfriend up, expect us to talk about her. If you ascribe crazy behaviors to her, expect us to notice. If she indeed doesn’t behave that way, then it’s you who owes the apology.
Seriously, if I said anything to you that merits an apology, find it. Because I was perfectly decent to you this whole thread, and I don’t think the same can be said about you. All I’m learning here is that you think the very act of disagreeing with you is one that merits an apology. Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Oh my! Look at the paws on those guys!!! We call our little princess the Super Model (amongst others things such as The Theif, Sqeaky McSqeakerson, Moewmer, and Mouthy), she is really long and slender and just drop dead gorgeous. Her real name is Mia though. Her brothers are huge like your boys though, so I am hoping once we get her fixed she will plump up a little, this last heat was almost unbearable. Poor horny thing! If you look me up on Teeming Millions, I provided a link a page or two back, you can see her. She’s one crazy character. We cleaned out our Florida Room a couple weekends ago, and since we do not let her outside, she has claimed it as “her room”. With windows all around it when I open it for her she’ll spend all day in there “hunting” the bugs and birds outside.
Sure enough, my posts were fairly irrational, as were everyone else’s. This was a pretty emotionally charged thread. Everybody said stupid shit, including me. And including you.
When I said “Her cats are her children”, that could be interpreted in any number of ways. The rational way would be to interpret it as “Her cats are her dependants and she cares for them as she would care for children. Not literally, because, hey, they’re cats.” Instead, you jumped right to the most irrational of all interpretations, slapped it on her, and then declared her to be crazy. I tried continually to explain it better, but you would have none of it. I tried (probably not with the best of skill) to get at what about this you thought was crazy, but you seemed unwilling to answer. In fact, I still don’t know what you were on about.
If that’s not what you were implying then I have no idea what thought processes you thought she was having that would constitute insanity. You have yet to offer that up. I tried explaining things as best I could in post 236, but you have yet to comment on that.
Please, help me out here. I’m very curious about this. Instead of just bandying the word “crazy” about, explain how you arrived at that conclusion. In fact, maybe you should first define your use of the word “crazy.”
Who, exactly, did I threaten? And how?
this was such a silly, fun thread…
Not to you, I didn’t.
tdn, In this post, Snakescatlady tried to justify the award by comparing cats to children. This comparison only works if you acknowledge that cats and children are equivalent. And I’m sure you’ve met people who use this argument to justify all sorts of ill-mannered behavior - if it’s acceptable to bring your children with you on vacation, it ought to be okay to bring your pets as well, and so on. People make that claim all the time. And they definitely do so on the SDMB.
Except that we were discussing people who think their pets are somehow equivalent to children. Naturally, in that context, when you declared that your girlfriend’s cats were her children, it was interpreted as meaning the same thing, rather than as a complete non sequitur. It turns out it was a complete nonsequitur. I’m sorry that my mind-reading skills are not sharper.
“Literally”? Are you still hung up on trying to prove that your girlfriend can tell the difference between cats and children? You brought your girlfriend up in the context of a subdiscussion of irrational behavior. What’s next? Someone posts a thread on trichotillomania, and you post to mention that your girlfriend pulls her hair out every day, people respond recommending treatment and you get all huffy, because you were talking about how she plucks her eyebrows? Sure, it would make sense that that was what you were discussing, had you not tried to bring it up in a discussion about something else.
You tried to explain it by explaining that your girlfriend can physically distinguish between pets and children. No shit, Sherlock. Then you tried to explain it by saying there’s nothing wrong with loving another species more than your own (Post #31).
Then you started demanding apologies from those people who took what you said at face value (Posts #37 and #44). And in the latter post, you continued your completely irrelevant declarations that your girlfriend could tell the difference between cats and humans, even though Debaser had already pointed out that this was (as is obvious) not the matter in question. No matter, you brought it up again (Post #74). You continued by completely ignoring what Neurotic said (Post #99) when he explained exactly what I’m trying to explain to you right now. There are people who claim that their pets are legitimately equivalent to children. You said something that, in the context of the thread, could only be interpreted to mean that. If you want to get mad at people for interpreting your words in the way that they immediately lend themselves to, be my guest. But Christ, it doesn’t follow that it’s our fault for not reading your mind.
In Post #101 you went with a strawman - you decided that we were pissed because children were being “denigrated” by a comparison to cats. Needless to say, no one had posted that. We didn’t see from you for awhile. But in Post #153 you demanded evidence from Neurotik that your girlfriend treats her cats like children (you finally decided to respond to Post #99). Obviously you intended to demonstrate that Neurotik was making an unwarranted judgment about her. But in reality, those of us who doubted your girlfriend’s mental state were, as I’ve demonstrated, simply responding to the only logical interpretation of your words. You continue to avoid acknowledging that you spoke badly, and continue to excoriate us for interpreting your words logically.
In Post #167 you continue to whine about people attacking your girlfriend. Get a clue, buddy. You brought her into the discussion. No one had speculated about her, we had just responded to your explanation of her behavior, which you brought up spontaneously. In one pitting of Liberal that I don’t remember well enough to search for, people spontaneously began speculating on how awful his wife’s life must be. That was completely uncalled for and over the line. But in this discussion, you wanted to use your girlfriend as an example. If anyone should apologize, again, it’s you, to her. She didn’t deserve to be used as a rhetorical tool. By the way, you seem to completely miss the irony of Lute Skywatcher’s statement See, this is why you, Neurotik and tdn are going in circles. It’s clear to me that tdn has been using “children” to mean “dependents” but you and Neurotik are only seeing “children” as “children”. Now, this is a perfect illustration of what went on. You used one word to mean something entirely different. And you got mad at everyone who took your words to mean what you said.
In Post #170 you continue to make demands. You made demands all through this thread - for apologies, justifications, explanations. (Hence my use of the word supercilious - you are not entitled to make demands of us, and you shouldn’t become shocked when if we don’t comply.)
In this whole time, you didn’t even try to explain what your girlfriend actually does. Neurotik (Post #99 again) and I (Post #195) both tried to ask whether, in fact, your girlfriend thought of her pets as equivalent to children. You decided to get pissed over Neurotik’s question and declined to answer mine. So no, the quote above is a lie. You not only did not try to explain that you had overstated your girlfriend’s commitment to her cats, but you ignored opportunities we offered.
Do you get the difference here yet? There’s probably a few people out there (I’ll call them category one) who are psychotic to the extent that they think their pets literally are children. Then there’s a good deal more folks who - while not thinking their pets literally are human children - will vociferously state that they think the pets are just as good as human children and equally deserving of accomodation in public, and so forth (category two). Then there are those of us who may refer to their pets as children, but don’t honestly think they’re equivalent (category three). For instance, I’m willing to go on a vacation and leave the cats behind, as long as someone can check up on them every couple days. Folks in category two find hotels that accomodate pets and demand that their friends put the pets up if they visit.
Since, when you brought your girlfriend up, we were discussing category two folks, many of us assumed that this is where she fit in. Those people are crazy - probably not psychotic, but it’s definitely indicative of an emotional problem if you consider your pets equivalent to children. (Do you understand the difference between “equivalent” and “equal” yet?) So we decided your girlfriend was crazy.
You reassured us over and over that she didn’t fit within category one - the truly psychotic. Since none of us believed she did, this seemed at best to be an irrelevant response. Debaser tried to explain that all the way back on page one. You ignored every attempt to help you explain your way out of it. Now you finally explain that, no, your girlfriend is in category three, sane pet-owners. But we had no way of determining that based on your responses because not only did you not take the time to explain what you originally meant, but you had carefully avoided every opportunity we offered to do so.
Do you understand now that no one was actually claiming that your girlfriend considered her cats to be her literal children, sprung from her loins? None of us had ever assigned her to category one, which is why your statements that she wasn’t in category one made no sense at all.
I’m trying to explain this the best I can. I don’t see why you spent the whole thread trying so hard to believe that we thought your girlfriend was literally psychotic. No one thought that. We thought she was a lesser degree of crazy. And you most assuredly did not try to disabuse us of this notion. I’ve broken down what our reasoning was to the best of my abilities. If you still don’t get the distinctions between those categories, then I’m not sure what else to say.
If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that in post #44 he clarified that he meant “dependents” instead of “children”. But no, you just glommed on to the “demanding an apology” bit.
This thread is going to make my head asplode.
Put in those terms it certainly does make more sense. When I made my original post, I was thinking in terms of category 3, and I’d mistakenly thought that I’d made that clear. When you and Neurotik called her crazy, I’d assumed you meant category 1. And let’s face it, crazy is a loaded term, so I don’t think it was unreasonable to assume that’s what you meant. If you explained the difference earlier, then I guess I missed it, but truly I was looking for something like that. Had you explained it in those terms earlier (or had I seen it – honest, I was looking!) then we could have avoided this whole thing.
You’re right about context, and I was wrong to assume that the deeper meaning of my words would be instantly understood outside of that context. My bad. And I was in a mood that morning, so it’s likely that when I stumbled on this powder keg of a thread then I was looking to pick a fight. Again, my bad, and for that I apologize. And I was probably reading your posts through a filter of anger, and selectively picking out the comments I wanted to see. Apologies for that as well.
But I think you share in some of the culpability. You should be aware that calling someone crazy is not going to go over well. Say that about someone’s girlfriend and you can expect a negative reaction. I’m not sure what you were hoping for, but don’t be surprised at what you got. If I may suggest, you might have asked what I meant when I made my original comment rather than slapping on a hot-button label. Sorry, dude, but that was your bad.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that post. Take out the first and last sentences and I actually come off as a reasonable person. 
Well, my last post included lots of posts that explained it. Way back on page one Debaser explained that no one thought your girlfriend was incapable of distinguishing cat from child. My use of the word “equivalent” throughout the thread was quite deliberate. And I contrasted it with “equal” on more than one occasion. That post was far from the first time I tried to explain it, and other folks tried a lot of times as well. I tried my best to make it explicit this time, but frankly, I don’t see why it was necessary to work so hard.
Thank you for apologizing. I hope a look through my old posts makes it clear that I was not deliberately rude and I tried my best to explain everything as well as I good, more than once in a lot of cases.
“Crazy” is not all that harsh of a descriptor, especially not in the pit. And frankly, it didn’t occur to me that your saying that your girlfriend thought of her cats as children meant anything else. Should I ask for a clarification of every point everyone ever makes before responding?
To me it is, depending on context, of course. You may as well have called her a whore. I took it as you calling her so mentally unstable that she couldn’t function within society, and was wrapped up in a straight jacket, or should be. And that you drew such a conclusion because you must be thinking that she thought her cats were actually human babies. I know now that that’s not how you meant it, but before you explained it, can you see how I might have logically come to that conclusion? And can you see how I might be supremely insulted by it?
Miscommunication sucks.
Every time? Everyone? Of course not. But there are times when it is reasonable to do so, and IMO this was one of those times.
Besides, you had made a clarification in your second post after brining up your girlfriend.