Conference quark::mennotes

    Being very committed to my animals, I don't even know how A got into a
    relationship with someone that allergic to the critters.  (Love me love
    my cats, dogs, and other odd furry creatures, as well as my kids)
    
    I really don't see how this relationship is going to work in a live-in
    type of commitment.  I wish you both well on whatever paths you take.  
    
    Meg

A friend of mine suffers from Asthma, which can be hell. So I'm not surprised
B said no.

Are options like - 1) A has a friend who will  gladly take the dog, 2) A 
could find somebody to buy the dog, 3) A could build a kennel in the garden, 
open for A ?

Are A and B both prepared to compromise or is it a case of - 'the dog or me ?' 
For example, if it was possible and practical to build a kennel in the garden 
would that present an acceptable compromise for A, B and the dog ?

What's the relationship like between A and B ? A has a clear responsibility to
the dog but to him/herself too. If the relationship was that important to me, I'd
try and solve the dog problem. I wouldn't deal with the 'her or the dog' choice. 
If the relationship was important for her, I'd expect her to compromise and 
help find a workable solution. If neither of those apply I wouldn't move in with
her.

- Paul

    I'm with .1 in questioning how things got this far - but I concede that
    people often ignore potential problems in the earlier stages of a
    relationship, either because they're too busy enjoying the excitement
    or because they think/hope the problem will just go away.
    
    There are lots of possible workarounds, but it will take the
    cooperation of both A and B to achieve them. Some kinds of allergies
    (and some people!) are easier to treat than others; would B consider
    undergoing a medical desensitization process? Or - in some cases,
    bathing the animals fairly often seems to reduce the amount of the
    offending substances in the air, easing the symptoms of the allergic;
    would A be willing to bathe the dog and cat every week to see if that
    helps? 
    
    Or A might try and find a home for the animals with someone who'd let
    him/her visit them on occasion. Or A might suggest building an outdoors
    run with heated shelter for the animals, so they wouldn't be in the
    house proper. Or B might offer to move in on a trial basis, to see
    whether the allergies (as they sometimes do) subside on frequent,
    regular contact with the triggering substance.
    
    Or, if both A and B are adamant in their positions, they might decide
    that either the relationship should continue as it has been - or it
    should end.
    
    I'm sure I've left out a few possibilities. The one thing that I hope A
    and B do *not* do (though it may be too late) is to fight over
    motives... Lots of people do have strong feelings about animals and
    their relative importance in life, and it's difficult if not impossible
    to argue them out of it.
    
    Good luck,
    -b

    It's pretty much up to A at this point.  B has not said let's try a few
    things and see if something works.  B has said B is ready to move in
    with A if-and-only-if the animals go.  It's a very simple choice.  It
    is also perhaps one of the hardest choices A will ever have to make.
    
    o	If the animals are more important to A than having B move in is,
    	the animals stay and B doesn't move in.
    
    o	If having B move in is more important to A than keeping the animals
    	is, then the animals go.
    
    -dick

    Re .3
    
    > Guess guys we
    > know were we stand
    
    There was in .0 no clue whatever as to the genders of A and B.  Your
    suggestion that A is a woman and that this is a "Pame* Smart" situation
    is entirely without foundation and is out of place in this string, even
    as a joke.
    
    -dick
    
    * Ms Smart's own spelling of her name

    
      I'd find a home for the dog + cat.
    
     We all choose what's important to us........and in what order. If
    A + B  are at the point of a live-in relationship....( I'm assuming
    they're in love.....)  than the choice should be easy.
    
    Jack
    

    Topics such as this always make me cringe.  I, too, question why things
    got this far.  Having 3 cats myself and a real animal lover in general,
    I won't even date someone who is allergic and can't/won't tolerate my
    cats.  True I might be passing up some of the most wonderful men in the
    world, but sooner or later the animals are going to become a bone of
    contention and try the relationship.
    
    It is unfortunate that cats and dogs are treated as disposable
    "property" in our throw away society.  If you didn't like children, you
    wouldn't become involved with someone with kids, and no one would EVER
    DREAM of giving away their child for the sake of another person.
    
    I guess she is going to have to make the decision that is best for her. 
    Have you tried other options like allergy shots/medication?  Bathing
    the animals more frequently to alleviate the dander, which is the major
    cause of most animal allergies??  I personally don't believe in putting
    the animals outside if they are not used to a completely outdoor
    environment.  It is cruel and very stressful for them (which was
    suggested in other reply.. to build an enclosure outdoors).  If the
    animals are family pets, it could be awful for them to be banished
    outside.
    
    Good luck to you.
    

    Re .8
    Jack, even if A and B are at the point of a live-in relationship, it's
    not an easy choice.  I know another couple who were on the verge of a
    live-in relationship.  A was a <one kind of animal> person, and B was a
    <different kind of animal> person, and their inability to reach an
    agreement over the animals was a factor in A's decision to break off
    the relationship.  (It wasn't the only factor, A told me, but it did
    play a part.)
    
    -dick

    
    I'd tell B that when B is ready for Marriage, as opposed to living
    together, then the homes will be found for the pets. But until then,
    seperate residences will be maintained. "Moving in" is not sufficient
    commitment in my book to sacrifice my pets.
    
    Luckily, my loved one adores my kitties. Who are ALWAYS around. I
    dated a man once who did not. It was just one of the things I wasn't
    happy with. If was a very brief relationship.

    
    re .9
    
    Au contraire, there *are* some parents who would pass the kids off to the
    other parent if a new potential love came along.
    
    Not a nice thought, but no less true.

    If I were the allergic one I would at least try shots first. A shot or
    two once a week for a year is not that big a deal. (I was getting 6
    a week for a year and a half and even that was not a big deal.)

    If I were the pet owner I'd look to find a new home that would give
    me visiting rights. But then I'm not one to get all that attached to
    pets. People yes. Pets no. I'd not be likely to get too involved with
    someone who'd spend more than an hour or so deciding to give up a pet
    for a person they want to spend the rest of their life with.

    		Alfred

    
    
    I have asthma and allergies to almost everything it seems.
    Yet I am able to have a cat and also have lived with upwards
    of three cats and two dogs under the same roof.  There is an
    initial adjustment period of ones body.  That can be hell,
    but can be minimized with overthecounter allergy meds.  
    
    
    Love is far too wonderful to let something that is treatable
    deny it!!!  If B seeks treatments and finds that it just is
    not medically feasible, then B has to make a decision as to
    stay or go.  
    
    B also has to realize that A's relationship with the animals
    is probably like that of parent/child.  Asking a person to
    give up that "child" is sometimes not a realistic option.  
    If B hasn't had any pets, this might be hard to understand.
    
    Michele

    Well, as it turns out B had cats as a kid and didn't turn allergic
    until "late" in life. Finds it hard to keep the hands off the loveable
    little furball. B and the dog get along great as well. B has taken
    medical treatments and they don't seem to have worked. 
    
    Dj

    
    There are commercially available HEPA air filters for home
    use. They're a home use version of the filters used in Cleanrooms 
    and they'll filter out every particle above a couple microns
    in size--pollen, pet hair, dust, everything. I've seen 
    them at Sears and HQ. Using one might cut down on alergenic
    reactions.
    
    Also, if the house has hot air heat, it might help to have the ducts
    cleaned, filters changed, etc.
    
    E. (passing through)
    

Re: .0

The QUARK::HUMAN_RELATIONS conference might be a more appropriate forum for
this topic, though it may continue here as well.

				Steve

	I agree with many in here that A has to make a decision. A's decision
may be harder as the child may also have an major attachment with the animals.
If B has had medical treatment and it hasn't worked, then it will be hard for B
to live with A. One thing that might help was suggested. Having the air
filtered. I would also recommend that the carpets and furniture be cleaned
often.




Glen

    Oh, I almost forgot.  My father had severe adult-onset asthma.  Getting
    rid of their pets wasn't an option for my mom or dad, so he wound up
    collecting some anti-allergy stuff whenever he ran across it.  (and
    here my SO and other people wonder where I got my habit of collecting
    trivia from.)
    
    Apparently spraying a dilute mix of green tea on carpets did something
    to the allergens in Cat-dander in rugs.  I don't know if that would be
    helpful or not.  Also hypnosis had been used in some cases to reduce
    allergic reactions.  (hey don't ask me I only know some things work for
    impossible reasons)
    
    Meg

    
    if it were me (I were B)?  there's no way I could live with animals.
    
    A would need to chose - live with me or the animals.
    It's really up to them, although some resentment from somebody (adults
    and/or children) would occur with any choice....
    
    -Jody
    

    I, as others, find it incredible that it's gone this far.  "A" and "B"
    are to the point of wanting to co-habitate yet this little "thing"
    hasn't come up?  Whoa.

    Has anyone taken into account the relationship between the child and
    the dog?  Hey, folks, my dog is FAMILY.  I could not in good faith
    ask my child to restrict her relationship with her dog so that someone
    could move in ... I dare say that the possibility of a not-so-good
    relationship between the child and the move-in is very possible.

    Please consider the poor dog!  You know the old saying:  "a bird is a
    bird and fish is a fish and a cat is a cat .. but a dog is PEOPLE"

    Bubba

    Denny, I have the solution to this problem.  Call me if you're
    interested.  Total cost about $.40.  Less if you want to use reloads.
    
    - M

    Either that or a visit to the Golden Puppy...
    
    - M

    WEll, I've learned one thing out of this. The culture I grew up in is
    different than the east coast culture. Where I grew up animals are
    considered to be food and not relationship substitutes. They grow up,
    they are sold and they are slaughtered for the table. It never occurred
    to me that an animal would be ranked equal to a human being. Even if a
    cat rather than a steer. Diversity, I suppose.
    
    Dj

    Mike, you haven't changed a bit......... :-)

    
     .10, Dick,   Like you said, it wasn't the only factor over the
    breakup of the couple you mentioned.    
    
      My view restated, We all choose what's important to us, and in
    what order.  I love cats.  I live alone.  If I were to get to the point
    of a "live in, couple...( i.e. lovers ) committed....( gee, I found the
    one I hope to spend eternity with....etc " relationship,   THE CHOICE
    WOULD BE EASY ! 
    
       One other thing....  even though I love cats.... I'm far from 
    believing that animals are as important as humans.  Not even close.
    And, I know that there are people around that believe animal life is
    as important as human life.    But that's a rathole.
    
    Jack
    

    
    I don't completely equate pets to people, but I respect their unique
    role as non-human companions. Pets have been shown to help children 
    with disabilities, and to fill needs for companionship in elders. Dogs
    have been trained to help the blind, building a unique relationship.
    
    The reply equating animals with food in all cases appears to ignore
    these relationships. However, they are of vital importance to some
    humans. And yet, the animals are CLEARLY subordinate - they are serving
    a need for companionship with minimal compensation. You could not hire
    a human to be your eyes in return for water and Purina dog chow. You
    could not hire a full-time teacher for an autistic child for as little
    as the cost of feeding Fido, who offers love, companionship and minimal
    reproach.
    
    So: for those of you who love your pets, try to acknowledge that part
    of their value is that they are NOT human. They do not talk back. They
    may bark or mew, but they cannot squeal, ruin your reputation or
    otherwise use words against you. You do NOT have to give them fur
    coats, stereos, diamonds or the like. You don't have to take them out
    to dinner. Most times, you would NOT want to share your hobbies with
    them. They do not provide deep intellectual stimulation. I'm not down-
    playing the love, affection and companionship that they can provide.
    But they simply don't equate.
    
    With that said, I turn to the non-pet people and say: pet owners place
    enormous value on the affection and companionship which they receive
    from their pets. The relationship is relatively simple, and yields an
    incredible return. By comparison, there is ENORMOUS risk in human
    relationships, with different reward. Some would say inherently better,
    but only if it truly is an excellent relationship.
    
    So: choosing between two dogs in the house and a mate on the doorstep
    gets difficult. You are asking to trade a sure thing for a risky thing.
    There is an assumption that the human can replace the pets, but that
    isn't true because the relationships are distinctly different. Most pet
    owners would rather have both, than have to choose.
    
    So, what do you do when it comes to this point... I think that's why I
    said that living-in, being less certain than marriage, is not the point
    at which I'd give up my pets. It would only be at the point where I
    felt that the human relationship *would*, by itself, be more valuable
    than the simple relationships I have with my pets, that I would be able
    to make the trade.
    
    Its a very selfish statement actually. But trading relationships, even
    non-human ones, is complex and not something most of us take lightly. 
    And because its so close to our innermost needs, it IS something to be
    selfish about. 

    I love cats, and have five.  I have had my Siamese cat, Jade, for
    almost 15 yrs., and her son for 13 yrs.  At this point in my life, I
    know that I would never willingly give up my cats, even for a love
    relationship.  Knowing this, I would never let a serious, long-term
    relationship develop with a person who was either allergic to cats, or
    hated them.
    
    I might consider trying to find homes for 3 of the cats, but I know I
    will always want to have at least two cats, and will never want to live
    anywhere, or with anyone where that isn't possible.
    
    I resent the suggestion that people who love their pets consider them
    to be substitutes for relationships with people.   The enjoyment and
    satisfaction I've received from my pets over the years, as well as the
    love I feel for them, has always been in addition to my relationships
    with other people, not instead of.  Even when I was happily married, I
    still loved my cats, and even if I find myself in another happy SO
    relationship again someday, I'll still want my cats.  I just happen to
    *like* small, pretty, soft, furry creatures, that I can pick-up and hug
    and cuddle, while they purr, that's all.  People are bigger, and don't
    look or act like cats, so they just don't fulfill my need to have a
    cat, no matter how wonderful they may be as people.  Of course, my cats
    don't fulfill some of my other needs, such as, good conversation,
    companionship at movies, dinner, etc, or sex, so that's why I like to
    have relationships with people, too.  
    
    Lorna
    

    If a realationship is built upon animals as a common interst then fine.
    IF it is built upon something else then you better be ready to make a
    sacrifice if this is what both A and B want. If A loves B and, B loves
    A then the sacrifice of the animals should be second nature. But, if
    there is a question in the equation, forget it. Say so long B, its Been
    real and find someone who is not allergic to cats, rats, hounds, and
    elephants!:) 
    
    I really thing that this is a waste of disk to think that someone would
    place animals top of the list of the relationship if two people really
    love each other. Yes, we live in a disposable society. Yes, its easy to
    trash a marriage with a stroke of the pen. And so with many other
    things of our lives. But if there is a love then the animals wont
    matter at all.

    re .29, I don't see how you can say "if there is a love then animals
    won't matter at all."  When I read a statement like that, it just seems
    to me that people who are not animal lovers just don't understand how
    animal lovers feel.  
    
    If I give a home to a kitten, and love it and take care of it, then
    that cat is going to be my cat for the rest of it's life.  As I
    mentioned before, my Siamese cat, Jade, has been with me for almost 15
    yrs. now.  I've never even been in a couple relationship that lasted
    that long.  My ex-husband and I were together for 12 1/2 yrs., and the
    last man that I really loved dumped me after 2 1/2 yrs. for some woman
    he met at work.  I would never give up my cats for some guy, who
    regardless of how much it might *seem* we loved each other, I know from
    experience could decide to leave me after a few months, OR I could
    decide that it's not working with him.  People are too undependable to
    give up important things for them.  I could give up my cats for some
    guy, only to have him dump me after a few months.  The heck with that.
    
    People who don't love animals just don't understand.
    
    Lorna
    
    decide to leave me 

    Lorna,
    
    It is your priority. Animals above your relationships with people. Your
    priority might not go with someone else. Your statement is the same as
    why some should not inter-racially marry, or cross-thieology. If you
    love that person Nothing should matter. Right. Execpt if he/she has
    other problems of drug and achocol abouse. But insofar as pets. Hey
    whats wrong with getting a pet that B isn't allergic to. Like a fish,
    or a bird, or a rodent. Why do cats and dogs have a higher presidence
    over human life. You have the same mentality that some kid has who
    kills another for giving or recieving the middle finger. It just
    doesn't matter. 

    Why is it a question of whether "animals matter more than people"? Any
    time a relationship requires compromise, there's the possibility that
    one partner may have to give up "more" than the other, be it in regard
    to choice of jobs, place of residence, "Friday night out with the
    boys/girls," etc. - and while some people say "If you're _really_ in
    love, you'll gladly give up <whatever it is>," other people ask, "If
    s/he's really in love, why does s/he _expect_ me to give it up?"
    
    Personally, I'd have an easier time giving up my house and moving to
    some less Beth-friendly environment than I would giving up my cats.
    Other folks might prefer to give up pets than to move away from a place
    they've known and loved, or where their friends and family all live.
    Who's right? Who's wrong? Nobody... But, if the relationship is
    important to you, try and be as open as you can about discussing
    options. Even if you can't find common ground in the end, at least you
    gave it a try.
    
    -b

    re .31, that's pretty far fetched comparison there, comparing a person
    who wouldn't give up their pets for a relationship to a kid who would
    kill someone over getting the finger!!!!   I'm afraid I really don't
    see a connection between the two.  Just because I wouldn't be willing
    to give up my cats, doesn't mean I would ever kill someone for giving
    me the finger....or for any other reason other than self-defense.  I
    fail to even begin to see a connection here.
    
    Also, I wouldn't say that I put animals above my relationships with
    people.  What I would say instead is that I've reached a point in my
    life where I have my own interests, hobbies, priorities, etc., and
    there is a limit as to what I would give up for another person, even if
    I were in love with them.  For example, an ex-boyfriend of mine gave up
    motorcycles for his then wife.  After the marriage ended in a bitter
    divorce, he complained bitterly about having given up motorcycles for
    someone who turned out to be so negative part of his life.  My feeling
    was that he should never have given up the motorcycles for her in the
    first place.  I would say that I love cats as much as he loves
    motorcycles, and I don't think anyone should give up something they
    truly love for another person, because when someone does that, and the
    other person doesn't prove worthy of the sacrifice, then the first
    person feels bitter and betrayed.  It's better not to sacrifice so much
    in the first place.  The way I see it, if a relationship requires a
    major sacrifice in order to work, it probably wasn't meant to be
    anyway.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    No it is not far fetched. It is what you wish to value. I know a few
    folks who have sacrificed such things and they are still married after
    some 30 + years. Yet, you have combined both analogies to one to make
    things seem so out of whack it justifies your personal point. 
    
    It is what ever works for you. And it just doesn't really make a whole
    lotta sence to what or to who it is logical. So long as you can justify
    it. 
    
    But, remember, there was a man who was not shot in front of the dog
    because it would tramitize the dog.:) Ask Pam Smart.:)

    re .34, I totally disagree with you.  I don't think anything can be
    compared to murder except murder.  
    
    Just because I would not give up my cats for a relationship does not
    mean I would ever kill my husband.  
    
    And, I truly resent being compared to Pam Smart.  If I ever did have a
    husband I wanted to kill, I certainly wouldn't be such a wuss as to get
    a high school kid to do it for me.  I'd shoot the bastard myself!
    ha-ha!
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    Again, your taking a defensive and to me compairing you to Pam is
    wrong.
    
    But!:) People can justify anything they want in any way they want. Take
    the abortion issue. Truely a camp divided. Take other issues of such
    nature and you just might find that I have some credience there.:)
    
    

    re .36, but there is a difference in justifying something that could
    result in a crime (such as killing someone), and justifying something
    that would merely result in a life choice (such as not giving up pets
    for a relationship).
    
    All I was trying to do, anyway, was explain why a person might decide
    not to give up pets for a relationship.  It might help a person who
    disagrees *understand* why people do this, even if they would never do
    it themselves.
    
    Lorna
    

    It is only justifiable in the eye of the beholder. It is what we
    precieve life to be. And is interperted by those who are close in
    nature of our personal views or by those who understand these values.
    

    re. 38, but do you understand that I am not trying to convince you of
    anything, or change your mind?  I am only trying to *explain* something
    to you so that you can understand *why* some people might not give up
    their pets for a relationship.
    
    This is not a question of right or wrong.  Either choice - to give up
    pets for a relationship, or not to give up pets for a relationship - is
    valid.  It depends on the priorities of the person involved, the person
    with the pets.  Therefore, there should be no argument, no right or
    wrong, but only an explanation, and hopefully, understanding.
    
    At least the way I see it.
    
    Lorna
    

    .32,  We're not talking about a small issue like " Boys/girls nite out"
    here.  The basenoter is talking about 6 months of agony each year 
    when medical help isn't working.
    
    

    Rauh,  I agree with Lorna......
    
       I don't understand how you equate  choices in a relationship
    to murder.....abortion.......
    
        we're slipping way off track here !!!!
    

    Re .40: What makes you think that the "night out" issue is small to all
    people? I've heard some people claim that their spouse's unwillingness
    to (a) allow them to continue the night out or (b) stop taking a night
    out themselves was a directly contributing cause of a breakup... 
    
    My point was precisely that some people's "small issues" are other
    people's "major hangups".
    
    That said, I would never ask someone to subject himself to "6 months of
    agony each year" - either I'd get rid of the animals or I wouldn't
    urge cohabitation. But that would be my decision, and I have no way of
    knowing how the A&B couple feel about these things...
    
    -b

    .42
         In comparison to 6 months agony EACH year, yes, I think the
    nite out issue is small.   But, hey, your mileage may vary.
    

    re .29  ....if there is love then the animals won't matter at all.'
    
    You make it sound so simple.  Why would love for the animals go away
    because you love a human being?
    
    If only the reality of life was so simple at that statement makes it
    sound.
    
    Jeff

    Just read your reply Lorna.  You said in part the same thing I did.
    
    I do think that for relationships with humans to work that one MUST
    put the people first.  I did NOT say FORGET the animals.
    
    I have three cats and have enjoyed cats for many years.  Each is
    a real character and I have a good relationship with them all.  It
    would really hurt to lose any of them.  BUT.... don't kid yourself,
    if the chips were down and the house was on fire chances are the
    cats would run and leave you to burn... not because their relationship
    with you isn't real... but because as cats they put themselves first.
    
    Another human being might very well risk, (or trade) their life to help
    save yours.   To me THAT is love in its purest form.
    
    Now DOGS I have heard, just might risk their life to save yours.
    But I still think that a human should put other humans first.
    
    You mention that you would trade in a mate before one of your cats.
    I don't mean to be cruel,  perhaps that outlook contributed to the
    problems in those relationships?
    
    Jeff

    Jeff,
    
    I think you should go back and re-read my reply again as well.:)

    re .45, why does it bother you if I put my cats before an imaginery
    relationship with someone who doesn't like cats?  I would never be
    happy without my cats, so it would be silly for me to give them up for
    some hypothetical relationship.  
    
    I'm not going to give up my cats just in the hope that this
    hypothetical person will one day be around to save my life.  That does
    strike me as rather odd reasoning.  
    
    I choose both my pets and my friends based on how much I enjoy their
    companionship, not on how likely they are to try to save me in the case
    of disaster.  
    
    I fully realize that my cats are not capable of rescuing me from a
    burning building, but that has nothing to do with why I love them.
    
    Most people probably wouldn't risk their lives for other people,
    anyway, so I think it's unwise to expect it.
    
    Lorna
    

    A small nit:
    
    I have heard of many instances where cats have forewarned their human
    companions of house fires and saved their lives, not leave them to
    burn.
    
    I also understand what Lorna has pointed out... that couple
    relationships are too undependable to give up much loved pets for.  It
    isn't that she is putting the cats above the relationship or another
    person; it is simply too risky and not very prudent to find new homes
    for the cats to accommodate a new love interest, and then have that
    person turn their interests elswhere in a few months/years time.
    
    Why is this so hard for everyone to 'get'?
    

    My point wasn't that you NEED another creature in your house to save
    you from a potential fire.  (come to think of it I have heard of cats
    that have warned people of a fire in the house)
    
    It IS Lorna's choice to live with what/whom ever she desires, I have
    not debated that point.  If cats are a primary focus in her life, fine.
    
    What I am reading in between the lines is that the underlying attitude
    (justified or not) APPEARS to be a mistrust of humans.  This comes across
    in statements like: 'couple relationships are too undependable to give
    up much loved pets for'.  Fine, then don't give up the pets.  BUT
    don't expect suiters to come flocking to a person who is half expecting
    him to leave before he hardly gets settled in.
    
    The bottom line regarding the basenote is IMO do what is best for you
    based on the current info available to you.  If the boyfriends
    longevity (in a relationship) is so in doubt compared to the rewards of
    the compansionship of the cats then pick the CATS.
    
    I know that if my wife/girlfriend put her pets above my needs (assuming
    I had tried to compromise and was being reasonable) I would't want a
    continuing relationship with her anyway.... and I would expect her to
    feel the same way regarding me in a similiar situation if the situation
    was reversed.
    
    Jeff

    re .49, Jeff, none of my 3 live in relationships with men ended because
    of my cats.  Also, I didn't *expect* any of my three relationships to
    end as quickly as they did - 13 1/2 yrs., 2 1/2 yrs., 5 yrs. off & on,
    respectively - but, now, after the experiences I have had, I no longer
    expect any relationship to last forever.  I'm 43 yrs. old and it's the
    experiences in my life that have led me to distrust people.  When I was
    20 yrs. old I trusted everybody.  But, live and learn.  And, as far as
    having suitors "flocking" to me goes.  Well, I certainly don't expect
    that either, because the any average looking 43 yr. old woman, with
    hardly any money, who expects suitors to be flocking to her is in for a
    major dissapointment.  Suitors flock to pretty, women in their 20's,
    not average looking women in their 40's, whether they like cats or not. 
    So there!!!
    
    Lorna
    

 Cats! Did someone mention Cats???

Anyone up for some Chester the Molester stories??

    Are they new or just the ones you've already put in the 'Box?

    Please do spare us, Corky.  Go start your own notesfile about cat
    haters and spout off to your heart's content.
    

    re .51, take a hike or I'll claw your eyes out!
    
    Lorna
    

 RE: -3   Same ones Dave.

 RE: -2, -1 Touchy ain't we??

 

    How about a cat joke? As in one cat to another while watching a tenis
    match. 
    
    1st cat: Why are you so interested in the game?
    2nd cat: My fathers in that racket.:)

    
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say (again) that a person's attitude
    toward loved pets may strike others as selfish. Pets are rather
    addictive. And a person who gives up pets, or loses them, will probably
    suffer withdrawal.
    
    But then, most relationships have some addictive factor such that we'd
    miss the other entity if she/he/it were gone. 
    
    I think two human beings have the best chance of having a successful
    relationship if each person's "addictions" are understood and
    tolerated. That can include pets, sports, "girls nite out", "boys night
    out", Playboy/Hustler, Harlequin romances, etc. In some cases, there
    may have to be some compromises. And some of them may be unpleasant.
    And each person will have to make choices.
    
    You may not even notice that you go through these thought processes,
    but you will... things get weighed. With either a lot or a little
    thought. And you make decisions, keeping your interests, and that of
    your loved ones, in mind. And each interest will have some weight.
    Everyone's scale will differ a little. Some people may put their mate
    100% first. Some may put their mate 50% first. Some people might be
    balancing a mate, children, pets, personal interests etc. Its whatever
    works these days.
    
    And sometimes you won't make the best choice. But that too is part of
    life.

    Ok Lorna, I am beginning to understand why your saying what your
    saying.  Do I detect a note of bitterness?  Yes, I think I do and
    I do understand why now.   I am truely sorry those relationships didn't
    work out for you.  It must have hurt.  Having reliable warm critters
    such as cats must comfort you and I mean that sincerely.  Hopefully
    you will be able to include a man too if thats what you want.
    
    Don't be so sure that all men are looking for is cute young things.
    Some would be perfectly happy with a settled down mature woman.
    
    Smile,  Jeff

    I hear what Lorna is saying.  My oldest cat has been with me 18 years,
    unfortunately I don't think we will see 19 years together :-(.  That is
    longer than any adult male relationship I have had.  
    
    I couldn't have a long term relationship with anyone who could not
    tolerate pets, nor would I give up the pets if someone moved in and
    decided they couldn't handle my animals and their foibles any more than
    I would give up my children, my home, long walks with a girlfriend, or
    gardening.  These things are a large part of who I am, and presumably
    a person fell in love with me, not their idealized image of me.  does
    this clear things up a little.
    
    If I were willing to break a multi-year commitment (my pets and kids) 
    for a relationship, how could a person trust me to keep a multi-year
    commitment to them?  If I were to change my behaviors, commitments, or
    what have you for another person, what would they ask me to give up
    next and when would they fall out of "love" with the person I allowed
    them to create?  

    Pets?  I like them, but their place is outdoors.
    
    Gimme a great big outdoor mutt anyday.  In fact I have one right now.
    Makes a great watchdog and garbage disposal for leftovers.

    	I don't think it has been established just how serious the asthma
    is. My wife has occasional asthma attacks, and always carries an
    antihistamine inhaler just in case. She sometimes goes for months
    without using it, and we have never bothered to try to find what
    provokes it. It isn't the cat because she also had attacks at about the
    same frequency before we had one.
    
    	In my class at school I had a friend who had chronic asthma. One
    Monday morning it was announced in school that he had died over the
    weekend. The antihistamines hadn't been adequate, and they hadn't been
    able to get him to an oxygen tent in time. "Hadn't been adequate" means
    in spite of the fact that his parents had been equipped and trained to
    give him intravenous injections of antihistamine in the event of an attack.
    
    	In the first case - minor discomfort easily controlled - B can make
    trade-offs. If it is more like the second case, it would be ridiculous
    to endanger someone's life. A has to make the decision - either animals
    go or B doesn't move in.
    

    So, my decision would be - B doesn't move in.  The animals stay, and B
    goes!  Because I know how I feel about this, I would never get that
    involved with someone who was allergic to cats.  When I meet someone
    new, the minute they say they either don't like cats, or are allergic
    to them, a door closes in my brain.
    
    Lorna
    

    Some people maintain they don't like animals or kids.  When I hear
    someone say that it makes a very negative impression on me.
    
    Jeff

    
    Ya know, its funny. If we were talking about a smoker and an asthmatic,
    people would be more understanding about the no-win situation. It is
    VERY difficult to quit smoking. And some people can't seem to do it.
    Yeah, it would be great if you could "quit for the one you love", but
    its easier to find someone to love who won't make you quit!
    
    Much as many of us are having difficulty finding someone to be in a
    relationship with, few of us believe that there is only one person in
    the world for us. Heck, if that were the case, a lot of us would be in
    big trouble. With my luck, my one and only probably lives in the center of
    Indonesia somewhere. We'll never meet at the rate I'm going.
    
    Liking animals, kids, smoking, etc. are little things that add up in a
    big way for a long-term relationship. They become bridges to be
    crossed... or walked away from. And it makes no sense to dictate to two
    people how the situation gets handled. Its for them to decide, and not
    for us to judge.

    re .64, my mother used to say that she preferred the company of kids
    and animals to that of adult humans.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

.66 

They're probably more honest some of the time :-)



I'd say it's a kind of balancing act







severity of partners 'problem' with animal  X  importance of partner to you

versus

severity of action on animal     X      importance of animal to you




I would think someone who sneezed occasionally when a dog came in the room 
would be being selfish to ask for the dog to be put down, equally it would
probably be a bit imbalanced to insist someone with severe asthma had to 
cuddle the cat every morning or you wouldn't believe they loved you.


I love cats, have one I adopted a couple of years ago at the moment and 
also have a boyfriend who suffers from quite bad asthma.  When he's 
round my place Lucy stays away from him, and we spend a fair amount of 
time at his place so he doesn't suffer too much.  In the same way I 
restrict when I wear my favorite perfumes that make me feel good to 
when he's not likely to end up inhaling them too much. 

I tell you chanel don't know what a good asthma trigger they've got in 
Coco..... killer .... literally if you aren't careful!

If I'd been told I wasn't allowed to wear the perfume, or see Lucy
as often I'd  probably not be in the partnership I'm in - respect 
for my needs is a bit too important for that... 


Jo

    re . a couple
    
    
    It was said that people who don't like kids or animals leave a negative
    impression on the noter.   
    
    I'm curious:  why?  Is it really awful if someone doesn't care for
    non-humans and/or children?
    
    (I ask because although I greatly like animals, I don't particularly
    care for children.  Please understand that 'not caring for' kids is
    akin -- at least in my case -- as not caring for, say, coconut.  I
    don't like it, I won't eat it if I can avoid it, but by the same token,
    I don't hunt all coconuts down and kill them.)
    
    
    kolor me kurious,
    
    kim

>    It was said that people who don't like kids or animals leave a negative
>    impression on the noter.   

 Good question. I'm not really sure, speaking for myself. People who don't
like children leave a negative impression on me. I don't mean people who choose
not to have kids, or people who are sort of neutral on them, but people who
actively don't like kids bother me. Maybe it's a protection mechanism,
I'm not really sure. Maybe it has to do with the fact that THEY were kids
once, so I feel they should be understanding and tolerant. And the fact that 
they are not makes me uneasy.

 I also have a difficult time relating to people who don't want kids. I
realize in certain situations it really is the sensible thing to do, but
it tends to strike me as being selfish.

 The Doctah

Why do you believe that 'not wanting to have kids' is 'selfish' ?

Somebody could choose not to bring kids into the world for a variety of reasons. 
For starters.

	1. the relationship they're in isn't working or not stable enough
	2. they don't earn enough to support kids
	3. they don't like or enjoy being around kids
	4. they dedicated to cats, dogs or whatever and have no time for kids.

I'd consider having kids and then not spending enough time for them 'selfish' 
(probably a few more expletives there too).

    I am the one who made the original comment about having a negative
    impression of people who say they don't like kids or animals.  
    Perhaps I should have said those who say who don't like kids AND
    animals.  
    
    (This is my subjective impression) it doesn't mean that people
    who don't like both kids and animals aren't nice people.
    
    It may be that because I like both kids and animals that I just can't
    relate to people with that attitude as well since its foreign to me.
    
    

>Why do you believe that 'not wanting to have kids' is 'selfish' ?

 Let's be clear here lest we unleash a neverending string of notes based
on a misunderstanding. I did not say that not wanting to have kids is
categorically a reflection of the selfishness of the adult (as an objective
statement.) I said it TENDS to STRIKE ME as being selfish. (Do you now see where
the emphasis is? I don't know how much more I could have softened it and
still retained a degree of integrity of what I was trying to say.)

>Somebody could choose not to bring kids into the world for a variety of reasons. 

 I completely agree. Many of the reasons, though not all, strike _me_ as having
an element of selfishness in them.

 I, of course, do not believe that having kids is for everyone. I also believe
that ther are occasions when choosing to have kids is a selfish decision.

 What this all boils down to is when people tell me they don't like kids and 
would never want to have any, I am biased to consider them to be selfish
if I am given no additional information. I know this is a bias. I know this
is not applicable in all cases. It is how I FEEL, inside, when I hear those
words. How I feel is not necessarily a rational process.

 The Doctah

    re. 72
    
    
    Okay, what *isn't* a selfish reason not to have kids?
    
    
    (it's real question Doc, I'm interested in the answer)
    
    kim

 You're a female with a substance abuse problem which you fear may seriously
affect your baby's ability to have a normal gestation.

 You have a terminal illness and it's unlikely you will be around to raise
your kid.

 You lack the requisite qualities to be a good parent, and you know it.

 Your family has a history of some genetically linked defect.

 You do not have the resources to care for a child properly.

 Your relationship is unstable/marked by violence/whatever and you do not
believe you can provide a nurturing environment for a child.

 Note that this is not an all inclusive list.

    all of whuch presupposes that 'selfish' = 'bad'

    re. doctah
    
    Thanks for the list.
    
    I guess I'm now confused as to what is a *selfish* reason to have a
    kid.
    
    [she rambles out loud for a few lines, realizing that like the
    importance of animal relationships, it all boils down to being
    a matter of perspective, not real right and wrong.]
    
    Is not *wanting* any children selfish?  
    
    ("I don't want any because I don't care
    for them."  Sounds like someone with the knowledge that they wouldn't
    make a good parent -- good parents want kids, like kids, enjoy kids,
    and are happy to see kids.  People who don't want kids probably
    wouldn't make good parents and they know it.  Since that was on the
    list of not selfish, then it doesn't seem so selfish.)
    
    
    I suspect someone might say, well, what about people who didn't want
    children, but had an 'accident' and voila! a child came along and was
    raised and the parents were good parents as much as parents can be
    determined to be good?
    
    Well, they had to make the decision that they wanted that kid after
    all at some point, otherwise they'd have aborted or put the child up
    for adoption.  
    
    As for selfish = bad, well, it does have negative connoitations. 
    Nobody ever says, "You know, I really like that Kim person.  She's so
    incredibly selfish, I just die to know her."  :)
    
    But this is an animal relationships note...I digress.
    
    If someone wants to live with me, they gots to accept my zoo. I won't
    ditch the pets for people -- I took a certain responsibility to care
    for these critters when I got them and I feel bound to that.  I'll
    accept the consequences, it's a choice.  
    
    Can't explain it to folks who don't think the way I do, can only say
    that's the way I feel.  I can understand that some people *don't* care
    for animals, or don't care for them as deeply as I do, but that's all
    right, too.  I have my own sticking point (kids are one of them,
    actually, I really don't think I could live with someone who had kids,
    and I certainly am not going to have one anytime soon unless my
    biological clock starts ticking in an historically unprecedented way), 
    and it *would* become a bone of contention as much as my animals might.
    
    'Course, I wouldn't ask anyone to give up their kids.  One, it's not
    socially acceptable, and two, it's a lot to ask.  :)   But there's
    another things, too -- smoking, for example.  Although there seems to
    be the snowballing movement to outlaw smoking, I'm not all that
    concerned about it, as long as I don't have to breathe/taste/smell it
    on a prolonged basis.  In a house, that's a problem.  It tastes icky,
    the smell is annoying to smoke-free noses, and plus, it's carcinogetic
    or however you spell it.  Bleh.  Who needs to send cancer an open
    invite when there's already two million ways you can get it?
    
    At any rate, I'd either have to become smoke-tolerant or my prospective
    mate becomes smoke-free.  If neither of us are willing to bend,
    irregardless of how compatible we are otherwise, this bone of
    contention will get in the way.  I might ask so and so to give up the
    ciggies, if they said, Nope, then I'd have to ask myself, "Are you OK
    with this on an ongoing basis?" and if I said Nope, well, that's that.
    
    It boils down to livable choices.  And like a lot of choices, some are
    pretty tough to make.
    
    kim

    Selfish reasons to have children:
    
    1.  To have a little carbon-copy one can mold into an image of oneself
    (ususally destined to failure when the offspring hits somewhere between
    13 and 25).
    
    2.  to carry on one's "family name"
    
    3.  to have one person who will give you unconditional love (see 1)
    
    To me when I bring a pet into my home I am accepting a long term
    commitment of years to that animal.  Violating that commitment would be
    like cheating on a person, only worse, because a cat or dog can't be
    told why you are breaking the commitment, they only know you have
    abandoned them.  Violating a commitment to my pets for any reason
    except my untimelyd death wuld be violating a central part of my being,
    and denying who and what I am.
    
    Meg     

    re .77, I feel the same about my animals, and responsibility and trust. 
    I especially feel that way about Jade, my bluepoint Siamese, that I've
    had for almost 15 yrs.  I feel my cats trust me to take care of them
    and make sure they're okay, and I would never deliberately betray that
    trust.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I wonder if my boys trust me. They're 5 now, going on 6, and I ran off
    for 5 days leaving them alone in the house. Hey, I figure they know
    where the important stuff is, and they have each other.
    
    I would feel sad if I thought they wondered if I'd come home. I always
    come home. But one of the reasons why I have two is so that they will
    NOT be so dependent on me. And so I *can* go traipsing off.
    
    Besides, my mom can't stand 'em. Says they're spoiled.
    
    What can you do...

    What can you do. Never publically anounce that you leave your pets home
    for a week at a time cause someone from this confernce could drop a
    dime on you about cruelity to animals......
    
    
    Peace, Love, and Handguns

    If B, in the situation in the basenote, loses out to a dog and cat it 
    wasn't much of a relationship to begin with and, if A, insists on the
    "love me, love my animals" approach, B should RUN from such a
    relationship and be happy he/she found out before moving in. After all
    someone who values animals more than the other person in a relationship
    (dare we call this love?) needs another animal lover. And, if that is
    the case, let's hope A hooks up with someone who has pot-bellied pigs
    as pets and that they are MEAN little piggies that just can't stand
    kitties and doggies. Now, THAT should be an interesting situation.

    
    I'm not a "love me, love my pets" person. I'm a "love me, tolerate my
    pets" person. But in the case of an asthmatic, it still doesn't work. I
    don't expect everyone to love it when Fido licks their face... and
    their food, and chews their leather gloves or when Fluffy leaves 15 cat
    hairs in their soup, and sprays their coat with urine.
    
    But in all honesty, I think there is truth to .81's statement. If you
    don't love animals, or worse still, you don't like them AND you're
    allergic to them, you're going to come up against serious obstacles in
    a relationship with someone who lives intimately with animals. 
    
    However, I also think that its pitiful how oblivious non-animal lovers
    seem to be to the idea that a person who lives intimately with dogs or
    cats would not be emotionally bonded to them. ESPECIALLY someone with
    an indoor dog... who MUST be taken outside at least twice a day, which
    ensures that the owner must come home everyday.
    
    I *can* leave my cats for days at a time. You can't do that with dogs.
    And the day you take a dog into your home, you are making a daily
    commitment for the life of that dog.
    
    I'm not sure *I* could move in with a dog lover. I can't imagine not
    being asked to share in the responsibility of taking care of Fido's
    bathroom needs. And even if I wasn't asked, it would affect MY life
    and my lifestyle. 
    
    I have an acquaintance who got a dog because she wanted companionship.
    She got VERY lucky, and was able to ship Fido home to mom when she
    realized that she couldn't handle the responsibility of walking him
    twice daily. It interfered with her love life... Lord knows how she'd
    handle a child. 
    
    I spoke to someone else recently who told me it took 6 months to teach
    her puppy not to urinate indoors. 
    
    Folks: dog ownership involves SERIOUS commitment. And all of you who
    think that someone who goes through all this is going to just give up
    the dog that easily seem to be ignoring that commitment. The person who
    is GIVEN a dog, as a present, may end up giving it away. But the person
    who seeks out a dog as a companion on his or her own is not going to
    relate well to an "intimate" who can't deal with the dog.

    >>.82. Good comment on a pet being a commitment. I really hate people
    who buy a dog, tie it outside and never pay any attention to it. You
    are right that they do have needs for companionship and attention. It's
    always a toss-up between pet lovers as to which is better - cats or
    dogs? Haven't figured that one out yet as I have been around both that
    were very distinct personalities. With my wife's and daughter's
    allergies either is out of the question. I am not certain any of us
    would want the commitment of walking a dog a couple times a day. My
    neighbor is the best pet owner I have ever seen. Two little white
    Highland Terriers and they get lots of walks each day. She also cleans
    up after them if they mess on the sidewalk or a lawn. She treats them
    so good, I always have this suspicion that the dogs think they are kids
    and not dogs. Quite a pair!
    

    Cats or dogs better.........
    
    IMO its a matter of the owners personality/needs.  People who require
    a pet which can be left alone while you work and doesn't turn into a
    basket case if you leave it alone for a while do well with cats.
    
    People who can be essentially at home all the time and thrive on
    the attention the animal gives the PEOPLE do well with dogs.
    
    Jeff

    Re .84
    
    Obviously written by a person who has never lived with a hand-raised
    Abyssinian.  The one we live with, The Cat Bastet, insists on helping
    us do whatever we are doing; I cannot recall the last time I cooked
    dinner or watched TV or played a computer game without her assistance.
    Musta been when she was helping Barbara.  She will go off and do her
    own thing occasionally, but she is never far from people for long. 
    
    When we went away for a fortnight last summer, we knew she'd need a
    companion, so we found a friend who'd cat-sit.  The Cat Bastet was a
    bitch for two solid weeks; not once did she allow Amey to touch her. 
    Two minutes after we got home, things were purrfectly normal again.
    
    We thrive on that kind of affection.  So, for that matter, does Bastet.
    
    -dick

    
    When I went away one summer and left Pepper with my roommate, he used
    my shoe closet for a litterbox to express his contempt and rage. The
    following summer, I brought him with me.
    
    After Pepper died, I got two cats because I wanted them to be
    companions for each other, especially if I was gone for a while.
    This has worked out very well. I'm not going to say that they don't
    miss me when I'm gone, but at least they don't get vindictive. I
    usually find that while I normally only sleep with Barney, if I've been
    away for a while, both Barney AND Max will sleep with me for the next
    few nights upon my return.
    
    I tried a different experiment recently, and left them with a friend.
    They were virtually catatonic (no pun intended). So now I know; they're
    happier home without humans than away from home WITH humans. 
    
    Barney likes to read with me, eat with me and ESPECIALLY talk on the
    phone with me. Max likes to sit in my lap when I'm reading. He usually
    makes himself comfortable about 15 seconds before I feel a desperate
    need to get up to do something. Like answer the phone. And then he gets
    very annoyed at my inconveniencing him so...
    
    I could talk about the boys for hours. They make it nice to come
    home...

    Well, The Cat Bastet's apparent monomania would be *little* easier to
    dismiss were it not that Desdemona, a Siamese six years her senior,
    gets a fair amount of attention as well.  It is clear that Bastet, like
    Barney and Max, likes *people*.  (So does Desi, just not as much.)
    
    Dogs have always struck me, who lived with them until I left my
    parents' home, as the world's premier soft-soap artists.  They will do
    anything to please someone they love, to the extent that they lose
    credibility as thinking individuals and become people-pleasing robots. 
    I expect many dog lovers' mileage to vary, but it should be noted that
    I really do like other people's dogs.
    
    -dick

    One of my five cat's, Julian, an orange 3 yr. old neutered male, with
    four double paws, follows me all over the house, when I'm home.  If I
    go upstairs to the bedroom, he runs up with me, and sits on the bed
    watching me.  If I go downstairs to the kitchen, he runs down and jumps
    on the counter to see what I'll do.  If I sit or lie down to read or
    watch TV, he sits on top of me.  If one of the other cats beats him to
    me first, he pushes his way between them and me, so that he's always
    the one closest to my face.  If I don't pet him for a few minutes, he
    mews plaintively until I do.  In other words, he wants and tries to
    demand constant attention, and he is so adorable he usually gets it.
    
    Last night I fell asleep reading on my living room couch, and woke up
    to find Julian sprawled out asleep on top of me, and the other 4
    snuggled at various spots around me.  I looked around and said, "I
    *love* you guys!"  
    
    I've been living alone all fall and winter and I don't know what I
    would have done without my five kitties.  I'd be pretty lonely, I know
    that.
    
    Lorna
    

    The Cat Bastet!  That was going to be my next female cat's name but I
    don't know if I'll get another female since I've so enjoy my neutered guys
    (no offense intended, men).  Anyway I'm rereading the Emerson and
    Peabody books just now, and am so enjoying them.  I have:
    
    		Crocodile on the Sandbank
                Curse of the Pharaoh(s) (I think)
    		The Mummy Case
    		Lion in the Valley
    		Deeds of the Disturber
    
    by Elizabeth Peters.  Deeds... is dated 1989 and I wonder if there are
    more in the series now?  Title and ISBN greatly appreciated!
    
    aq
                             

    re:.88
    
    Four double paws?!  Where was he born, Three Mile Island?  ;')

    Re .89
    
    Beat you to it, huh?
    
    It was Elizabeth Peters who gave us the idea to use The Cat Bastet.  An
    ineffable name for an ineffably wonderful creature.  Divine, indeed!
    
    -dick

    re .90, close!!!  He was born in York, Maine!  Not very far from
    Seabrook!   :-)   He has 7 toes on each of his 4 feet.
    
    Lorna
    

    Bastek etc.  Ok ok, I know what you mean.  (I am the one who made stero
    typical comments about cats and dogs).  My cat Molly helps me do
    paperwork whenever I do it.  She also helps me read my son bedtime
    stories.  When getting him ready for bed she becomes positively
    motherly.
    
    She has a rule.  Outside can't touch her.  Inside, fine pat me all
    you want.  But outside.... NO WAY will she let herself be patted.
    
    Our cats too will sleep in the room with us after we come back from
    vacation... but after a few nights they are off on their own at night
    again.
    
    Dogs in general, COMPARED TO CATS IMO are much less able to handle
    seperation from their owners.  Dogs also TEND to more openly
    'salivating' with affection for their owners.  Cats are a bit more
    suble.
    
    Jeff

    Whenever I spend a night away from home, my favorite cat, Raven, (long
    fur, all black, big double paws - he's my baby), poops on the bathroom
    floor.  
    
    I guess it's just a little expression of what he thinks about having
    his mummy stay away for the night.  :-)
    
    My ex-boyfriend used to say, "Well, I guess Raven must be looking at
    his watch about now, saying, 'She's not here yet!  About time to go
    poop on the floor!"   :-)
    
    Lorna

    Whenever I spend a night away from home, my favorite cat, Raven, (long
    fur, all black, big double paws - he's my baby), poops on the bathroom
    floor.  
  



Maybe leave the cover up and he'll use the toilet ?

    re .95, no!  He might fall in!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Please Lorna, tell me you're kidding. With the incredible balance cats
    have, I've NEVER seen one fall in the toilet, in the tub, in the sink,
    or any other water-filled area that they were curious about.
    
    (My boys have been drinking out of the toilet for nearly 6 years.)

    re .97, no, I'm not kidding!  I've always been an over-protective
    mother.  You should've seen me the first time Melissa rode a bicycle. 
    I almost had a heart attack!!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Then I'll assume that you were smart enough, and concerned enough about
    your blood pressure and general cardiovascular system that you found
    someone else to teach her to drive!!! :-)
    
    

    Yes!  :-)  She took lessons.
    
    Lorna
    

    re:97..."My boys have been drinking out of the toilet for nearly 6
    years."
    
    	You really ought to teach them to use a glass.....less chance of
    drowning. 8^) Oh .......
    
    
    	you meant your cats......8^)
    
    Ken

    
    Thanks Ken. I needed a good chuckle.

    A glass is cleaner too.  Drinking out of toilets is a DIRTY habit I
    would discourage my boy from pursuing.

    Jeff

    Besides, *dogs* drink out of toilets!  Cats should be above such
    behavior!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    NO DOGS DRINK FROM MY TOILET!!!

    No, no, no!  That's not Lucy of Penuts, it's Diane of Penuts.  Lucy is
    of Pe*A*nuts.
    
    -dick

    My cat drinks from the dog's dish and any dripping faucet. My dog eats
    the cat's food and drinks from the toilets. It is kinda funny, he's a
    cocker spaniel who sits in front of the toilet bowl making that sad
    whimpering noise for someone to come in an flush......even if the
    water's clear....he doesn't trust it unless he can see it "go down".
    
    Ken

    One of my cats drinks from the bathtub.
    
    ed

>    One of my cats drinks from the bathtub.

	One of mine does as well. Only when someone is in it though. My wife 
	believes she's trying to lower the level of the tub so her person 
	doesn't drown. :-)

			Alfred

    "Cats Rule
     and Dogs Drool."
    
    -- "Sassy" in Homeward Bound

    
    Do you also have a cat who makes it impossible to read a newspaper. We
    have 5 cats: Loeder, Doerak, Nobby, Vienna and Spickel. Doerak talks
    back to us and always has the last word. Loeder, his uncle, lies anywhere 
    he likes and doesn't care what you say or do as long as he is allowed to 
    sleep. He is also the one that scrapes the window using his nails! to 
    tell you to let him in. when we then say "walk around" he'll be at the door
    within 2 seconds. Nobby is deaf and if you bend over him he'll grab you
    and crawl in your neck and...won't let go! he's white by the way with
    blue eyes 99% chance of being deaf!!! Vienna is the sweatest 50%
    siamese and tiger-tabby colored so is Spickel her daughter, however her
    socks are white. Spickel loves to lick....all over! yeaaach! like
    sand-paper those tongues. Oh I forgot, Loeder loves it when the
    tortoise crawls against his belly! :-) Yeah it's a gang of lazy cats.
    Would you believe it ......5 cats and still mice in the house    
    
    Mark
    They all drink from the fishbowl on top of the cupboard. People
    

    
    
    I have to share some more with you people:
    
    We bought ourselves a baby chicken "Toktok" at easter and I built a cage 
    for it.
    I had asked for a chicken but it appeared to be a rooster. anyway we'd
    let him walk free during evening hours and soon enough discovered that 
    it was getting extremely tame. Then one day we had a party and some of
    us were sitiing on the ground. Toktok would steel the patao chips and
    anything he'd like right out of your hand, the bowl, even your mouth
    if he got the chance. All of a sudden he'd managed to steel someones
    sigaret which he thought he could eat and swallowed it!!!! Then we
    decided to give him some beer to ensure the sigaret would be out!
    He loved it and kept on drinking. From that day on we were dealing
    with a beer rooster. whenever he only saw abottle or glas he'd come
    running/flying over to get a sip. This was so extremely funny.
    Everybody loved him. Some people didn't be;ieve us and would especially 
    come over to see the beer rooster "Toktok". We experimented afterwards
    using a glas of water and a glas of beer and whenever we changed it
    around he'd immmediatly choose the beer again. Wilma, my wife was used
    to Toktok sitting on top of the chair near her hair while making up
    then it happened....he saw the earrings sparkling in the sunlight and
    went for it, pulled the little buggar right through WIlma's ear and
    swallowed it immediatly. I thought I'd die laughing. half a year later
    we just had to get him to join the other chickens since he became so
    brutal he'd jump people when they would pass....an incredible animal
    this was! :-)
    
    Mark

    	Our cat Mittens is pretty large, maybe 20 or so pounds. He drinks
    	out of the toilet. Just leans in and drinks.
    
    	Scott
    

    Brother, an alcoholic rooster! 
    
    re .108 dog has to have toilet flushed to drink.  Well Ken, at least
    he is clean about it.... if one considers drinking out of toilets a
    clean habit.  smile.
    
    Jeff

    W.C. Fields was crossing the dessert, had a blow out on his car. Met a
    couple of snakes, offered them some whiskey. They were very obliging.
    And offered to help Fields out by linking tail to mouth. :) And
    replacing the blow out.:) AAAAAAhhh! Yes! Larson Eeeee, Whipsnake is my
    name!:)

  >>  replacing the blow out.:) AAAAAAhhh! Yes! Larson Eeeee, Whipsnake is my
  >>  name!:)

	"It's not 'Larceny'- it's 'Larson E.', and it's not 'Whipsnake'-
	 it's 'Whipsnade'."

	(to quote the man himself)


	Di

    Sorry! That was off the top of my head. Was not able to check any quote
    source books, nor was able to re-watch that movie. Anyhow.... Back to
    our normal secualing......:) 
    
    

    "can't read a newspaper"  Did you ever try cutting fabric?
    
    :-)
    
    ed

	>>Anyhow.... Back to
        >>our normal secualing......:) 

    George, have you been secualing again behind our backs?  I thought
    we talked about this.