Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.usage.english > #576861 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-24 17:50 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-01-02 14:24 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 225 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.usage.english
Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-24 17:50 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-24 19:10 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-24 14:55 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-25 11:34 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-02 14:25 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 07:39 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-02 22:15 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 13:42 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 17:20 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 22:30 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-03 12:45 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 15:51 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-03 10:37 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> - 2016-01-03 11:20 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2016-01-03 11:58 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 06:26 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 10:10 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 07:14 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 10:43 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 10:43 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-03 20:53 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 20:35 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 19:43 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-04 15:36 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-03 23:00 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 04:35 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 10:47 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE John Dawkins <artfldodgr@aol.com> - 2016-01-03 08:29 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-04 08:29 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 15:43 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-04 15:47 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 08:07 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 10:45 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-05 05:18 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Cheryl <cperkins@med.mun.ca> - 2016-01-05 08:59 -0330
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 06:55 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 14:09 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 21:36 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 11:12 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 09:51 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 14:09 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 21:39 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 11:12 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-06 03:25 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 06:22 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 16:33 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 09:28 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 10:47 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 11:11 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2016-01-04 22:57 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-05 14:44 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-05 10:42 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 11:03 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 22:25 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-06 13:42 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 15:55 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 21:28 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-06 19:47 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 05:46 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 15:55 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 11:35 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2016-01-06 19:41 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 12:29 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 23:07 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 14:33 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-07 09:17 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-06 20:37 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 17:51 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-06 14:31 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 09:57 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-07 10:27 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2016-01-06 19:07 -0600
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-06 20:32 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-07 09:35 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-07 11:44 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-06 20:30 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-01-06 00:08 -0400
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 11:12 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> - 2016-01-03 16:35 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 10:38 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Katy Jennison <katy@spamtrap.kjennison.com> - 2016-01-03 20:33 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 14:26 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> - 2016-01-03 22:07 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE LFS <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> - 2016-01-04 09:22 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 13:19 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> - 2016-01-04 14:59 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-05 14:48 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE analyst41@hotmail.com - 2016-01-03 08:46 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2016-01-03 18:46 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 11:13 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-03 20:53 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 14:20 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-04 12:49 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-05 15:00 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 10:45 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 07:54 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-04 08:31 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> - 2016-01-03 22:09 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-03 20:40 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 14:18 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-04 12:49 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2016-01-04 13:29 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2016-01-04 14:19 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 14:35 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 10:05 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-03 20:40 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 06:24 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2016-01-02 14:44 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-02 21:41 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 00:07 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-02 23:51 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2016-01-03 06:56 -0330
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2016-01-03 12:38 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-04 08:37 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2016-01-03 19:49 -0330
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-04 12:49 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 07:38 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel_cb@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-04 17:06 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-04 19:09 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-04 17:23 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 20:57 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-04 21:37 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-01-05 02:17 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 06:23 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2016-01-05 13:50 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> - 2016-01-05 13:32 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-05 10:41 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE analyst41@hotmail.com - 2016-01-05 03:49 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2016-01-05 19:30 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> - 2016-01-05 23:12 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 00:06 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-06 13:38 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 15:55 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 10:45 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 06:49 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 16:33 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-05 17:21 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 11:12 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel_cb@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-06 15:10 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-01-07 03:37 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Cheryl <cperkins@med.mun.ca> - 2016-01-05 13:02 -0330
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel_cb@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-05 18:00 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 19:25 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Cheryl <cperkins@med.mun.ca> - 2016-01-05 15:00 -0330
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 22:25 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 14:03 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 23:16 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Will Parsons <varro@nodomain.invalid> - 2016-01-06 02:07 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 11:12 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 05:49 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 15:55 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Cheryl <cperkins@med.mun.ca> - 2016-01-06 11:43 -0330
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:14 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 20:26 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 11:12 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 05:55 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 18:10 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2016-01-05 19:23 -0330
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 13:33 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-06 13:35 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:14 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2016-01-06 19:10 -0600
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-07 09:20 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2016-01-07 05:40 -0600
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-05 18:55 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 12:11 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0330
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-05 17:05 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 22:08 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-05 22:58 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Katy Jennison <katy@spamtrap.kjennison.com> - 2016-01-06 10:16 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:18 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 00:26 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-06 01:31 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 11:25 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 23:07 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 14:39 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 20:28 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-06 11:12 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 05:53 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-05 10:47 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-03 12:45 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:19 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-03 13:20 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 15:48 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-04 12:49 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-04 12:49 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-04 05:02 -0700
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 21:53 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-03 12:45 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 06:34 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2016-01-03 12:47 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-03 10:10 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2016-01-02 15:56 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-03 12:46 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-04 08:49 +1100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 10:49 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 10:46 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-04 13:13 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 11:17 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 22:29 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-02 11:27 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-02 11:56 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 14:05 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 10:53 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 11:20 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:12 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 09:34 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2016-01-02 16:40 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE ErrolC <Errolgc@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-02 14:02 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> - 2016-01-02 15:43 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-24 23:08 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 15:22 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 20:25 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2015-12-25 09:02 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-25 16:30 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 22:28 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-03 12:46 +0100
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 15:52 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2015-12-25 08:53 -0500
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-25 16:16 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-25 09:57 -0800
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-25 23:11 +0000
Re: Cat swinging is alive and well in AmE Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-02 14:24 +0000
Page 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 12:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1mghynu.1wi940d19augfwN@de-ster.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #578971 |
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:40:41 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 5:20:21 AM UTC-5, James Hogg wrote: > > > > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > >> On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 4:15:54 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >>> Apart from that, the huge numbers of birds killed that some > > > > >>> people come up with should be put in context. Bird populations > > > > >>> must be stationary, > > > > >> Splork! Most bird species migrate. > > > > > Sorry, I forgot for a moment that you are a linguist, and that the > > > > > concept of number is foreign to you, > > > > Wikipedia can help him here: > > > > "A stationary population, one that is both stable and unchanging in size > > > > (the difference between crude birth rate and crude death rate is zero)." > > > In English we say "stable." > > > In that case, his statement is simply false. Some bird populations cannot > > > keep up with feline predation. > > > > Really, you shouldn't try to bluff your way > > through (semi) scientific vocabulary > > using nothing but half remembered dictionary knowledge. > > Dictionaries are notoriously unreliable > > for things scientific, sometimes ludicrously so. > > > > Stationary is the term, stable is something else. > > A stationary population may be stable or unstable, > > depending on other factors. > > The technical term from demographics is _particularly_ misleading since avian > populations are conspicuously mobile. Calling them "stationary" creates an > entirely wrong picture. Agreed, it will, for people who are clueless on multiple meanings of words. You know, the kind that only knows one particular meaning of a word, and thinks that this must be the only one. (nobody in particular in mind of course) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 13:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lbqk8bhddtjjp2a7jf3385d4lb0cfpinq8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #579063 |
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:49:48 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
>Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:40:41 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 5:20:21 AM UTC-5, James Hogg wrote:
>> > > > J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > > > > Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > > > >> On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 4:15:54 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder
>> > > > >> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >>> Apart from that, the huge numbers of birds killed that some
>> > > > >>> people come up with should be put in context. Bird populations
>> > > > >>> must be stationary,
>> > > > >> Splork! Most bird species migrate.
>> > > > > Sorry, I forgot for a moment that you are a linguist, and that the
>> > > > > concept of number is foreign to you,
>> > > > Wikipedia can help him here:
>> > > > "A stationary population, one that is both stable and unchanging in size
>> > > > (the difference between crude birth rate and crude death rate is zero)."
>> > > In English we say "stable."
>> > > In that case, his statement is simply false. Some bird populations cannot
>> > > keep up with feline predation.
>> >
>> > Really, you shouldn't try to bluff your way
>> > through (semi) scientific vocabulary
>> > using nothing but half remembered dictionary knowledge.
>> > Dictionaries are notoriously unreliable
>> > for things scientific, sometimes ludicrously so.
>> >
>> > Stationary is the term, stable is something else.
>> > A stationary population may be stable or unstable,
>> > depending on other factors.
>>
>> The technical term from demographics is _particularly_ misleading since avian
>> populations are conspicuously mobile. Calling them "stationary" creates an
>> entirely wrong picture.
>
>Agreed, it will,
>for people who are clueless
>on multiple meanings of words.
>
I don't think that is fair in this case.
The problem is not so just with multiple meanings of "stationary" but
with multiple meanings of "population". Two relevant characteristics of
a population are its size (the number of members) and its physical
location.
In EverydayE "stationary" means "not changing location". The phrase
"stationary population size" would be understood to mean that the number
of members in the population is constant.
However, it seems that you are referring to a highly specialised, and
non-intuitive sense, of "stationary" used in demographics.
Someone, like me, who is unfamiliar with demographic terms, would tend
to guess that "stationary population" and "stable population" mean the
same thing, that the population size is unchanging. If the population
size was changing in a steady manner I'd describe that as a the
population having a "stable growth rate".
However, I see that this person in his lecture note writes:
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/sv/oekonomi/ECON3710/v08/undervisningsmateriale/stabpop.pdf
[stable]
Definition: a population is called stable when both its growth rate
and its relative age distribution do not change over time.
Hence the size of a stable population grows or diminishes at a
constant rate, but each age group has a constant share. The size of
each age group grows/diminishes with the same (constant) rate as the
size of the whole population.
[stationary]
A stationary population is a stable population in which the
intrinsic growth rate is zero. In other words, none of the
population variables in a stationary population change over time:
the annual number of births, the annual number of deaths, population
size, the size of a certain age group, etc, are all constant.
Those uses of the words "stable" and "stationary" are specialised
extensions, and restrictions, of the normal senses of the words.
I don't blame any non-demographer for being confused and baffled by
those terms.
It's almost as bad as physicists' misappropriation and misuse of "mass".
>You know, the kind that only knows
>one particular meaning of a word,
>and thinks that this must be the only one.
>
>(nobody in particular in mind of course)
>
>Jan
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 14:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0qvk8bh1rgd3rhptkvfnc1lp977btqenoa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #579080 |
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:29:05 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote: >The problem is not so just with multiple meanings of "stationary" but Expunge "so". -- Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 14:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1mgia42.1rnsbz5p3yuk0N@de-ster.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #579080 |
Peter Duncanson [BrE] <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:49:48 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. > Lodder) wrote: > > >Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:40:41 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> > Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 5:20:21 AM UTC-5, James Hogg wrote: > >> > > > J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> > > > > Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > >> > > > >> On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 4:15:54 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder > >> > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > > >>> Apart from that, the huge numbers of birds killed that some > >> > > > >>> people come up with should be put in context. Bird populations > >> > > > >>> must be stationary, > >> > > > >> Splork! Most bird species migrate. > >> > > > > Sorry, I forgot for a moment that you are a linguist, and that the > >> > > > > concept of number is foreign to you, > >> > > > Wikipedia can help him here: > >> > > > "A stationary population, one that is both stable and unchanging > >> > > > in size (the difference between crude birth rate and crude death > >> > > > rate is zero)." > >> > > In English we say "stable." In that case, his statement is simply > >> > > false. Some bird populations cannot keep up with feline predation. > >> > > >> > Really, you shouldn't try to bluff your way > >> > through (semi) scientific vocabulary > >> > using nothing but half remembered dictionary knowledge. > >> > Dictionaries are notoriously unreliable > >> > for things scientific, sometimes ludicrously so. > >> > > >> > Stationary is the term, stable is something else. > >> > A stationary population may be stable or unstable, > >> > depending on other factors. > >> > >> The technical term from demographics is _particularly_ misleading since > >> avian populations are conspicuously mobile. Calling them "stationary" > >> creates an entirely wrong picture. > > > >Agreed, it will, > >for people who are clueless > >on multiple meanings of words. > > > I don't think that is fair in this case. > The problem is not so just with multiple meanings of "stationary" but > with multiple meanings of "population". Two relevant characteristics of > a population are its size (the number of members) and its physical > location. > > In EverydayE "stationary" means "not changing location". The phrase > "stationary population size" would be understood to mean that the number > of members in the population is constant. > > However, it seems that you are referring to a highly specialised, and > non-intuitive sense, of "stationary" used in demographics. Which should have been fairly obvious, given that the sentence preceding had ... 'huge numbers [of birds] killed'....'should be put in context' So the 'stationary' that followed was used in an explicitly numerical context, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 10:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <toci8btmukthvtq686k9m8c49mmniqopbn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #578805 |
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 11:20:18 +0100, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote: >J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 4:15:54 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Apart from that, the huge numbers of birds killed that some >>>> people come up with should be put in context. Bird populations >>>> must be stationary, >>> Splork! Most bird species migrate. >> >> Sorry, I forgot for a moment that you are a linguist, and that the >> concept of number is foreign to you, > >Wikipedia can help him here: > >"A stationary population, one that is both stable and unchanging in size >(the difference between crude birth rate and crude death rate is zero)." Different, then, from the stationery population that fills that drawer with mismatched note cards, note paper, and envelopes. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 20:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1mggu4w.1iaaenx8tu3zdN@de-ster.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #578805 |
James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> wrote: > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 4:15:54 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Apart from that, the huge numbers of birds killed that some > >>> people come up with should be put in context. Bird populations > >>> must be stationary, > >> Splork! Most bird species migrate. > > > > Sorry, I forgot for a moment that you are a linguist, and that the > > concept of number is foreign to you, > > Wikipedia can help him here: > > "A stationary population, one that is both stable and unchanging in size > (the difference between crude birth rate and crude death rate is zero)." PDT clearly doesn't know that 'stationary' is a (semi) technical term, that is used both for space and time contexts. Apart from that it also has a precise meaning in mathematics that doesn't conflict with the everyday meanings, (some derivative being zero) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 06:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <644f353b-7b11-4b5c-a176-fbd9c6f5a11d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578802 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 4:37:21 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 4:15:54 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Apart from that, the huge numbers of birds killed > > > that some people come up with should be put in context. > > > Bird populations must be stationary, > > Splork! Most bird species migrate. > > Sorry, I forgot for a moment that you are a linguist, > and that the concept of number is foreign to you, Sorry, what does "Bird populations must be stationary" mean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 14:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <03f37703-a633-4951-9c1d-949a5ca6615d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578705 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:15:54 AM UTC+13, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 9:30:06 AM UTC-5, Adam Funk wrote: > > > On 2015-12-25, Peter Moylan wrote: > > > > > > > I've just finished watching "Last Cab to Darwin". (Highly recommended, > > > > by the way.) On the Oodnadatta Track near William Creek, in the middle > > > > of the desert, there's a tree with a whole lot of cats strung up on it. > > > > They don't like feral cats around there. > > > > > > > ><URL:https://www.flickr.com/photos/splatt/3672608548> > > > > > > Cane toads got no tails! > > > > > > OK, why are feral cats considered such a pest? I'd expect them to eat > > > mainly pests (small rodents). > > > > Cats eat many, many wild birds, and in Australia, some of the small > > mammals available aren't rodents but native marsupials. > > Australia is a case apart of course. > In their European habitat cats are primarily mouse eaters, > not bird eaters. I very much doubt this. "Cats hunt small prey, primarily birds and rodents", saith Wiki, citing Woods M, McDonald RA, Harris S. (2003). "Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain". Mammal Review 23 (2): 174-188. And neither Australia nor New Zealand (today) is lacking in small mammals. > They are ambush predators, and competent birds > are hard to ambush, too hard to make a livng from. Nonsense. Cats are quite able to ambush ground-feeding birds, as well as snapping up fallen nestlings, injured birds, etc. > Apart from that, the huge numbers of birds killed > that some people come up with should be put in context. > Bird populations must be stationary, > and most bird species that cats might take > overproduce enormously. > > So 'cat eat bird' is for most part > Darwin's 'tooth and claw' in action. > Rather than worry about the birds one may worry > about other predators being put out of a meal, > > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 21:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n6a8td12n1h@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #578727 |
On 1/2/2016 3:44 PM, Ross wrote: > > Nonsense. Cats are quite able to ambush ground-feeding birds, > as well as snapping up fallen nestlings, injured birds, etc. Not the ones in this neighborhood...I've seen them try to hunt, and the birds just laugh at them....r
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 00:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0qah8b989kfd310onu3h7m4c2rh3ga8ufd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #578774 |
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 21:41:19 -0700, RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> wrote: >On 1/2/2016 3:44 PM, Ross wrote: >> >> Nonsense. Cats are quite able to ambush ground-feeding birds, >> as well as snapping up fallen nestlings, injured birds, etc. > >Not the ones in this neighborhood...I've seen them try to hunt, and the >birds just laugh at them....r Last summer I was out on the golf course and noticed a cat stalking something. As I watched, it became apparent that a young bird was on the ground and the cat was going for it. All of a sudden another bird swooped down and evidently pecked the cat's head or somewhere near the head. The cat let out a howl and started to high-tail it away, but the bird - turned out to be a Mockingbird - continued the attack. The young bird on the ground tried to fly, fell back to the ground, started to fly again, fell, and finally took off successfully in a very wobbly flight. Bird 1 Cat nil -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 23:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <billvan-54844F.23514802012016@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net> |
| In reply to | #578774 |
In article <n6a8td12n1h@news6.newsguy.com>, RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> wrote: > On 1/2/2016 3:44 PM, Ross wrote: > > > > Nonsense. Cats are quite able to ambush ground-feeding birds, > > as well as snapping up fallen nestlings, injured birds, etc. > > Not the ones in this neighborhood...I've seen them try to hunt, and the > birds just laugh at them....r Depends on the cat. Our recently departed Lucy was starting to bring birds home regularly - several a week, sometimes on consecutive days - around 15 years ago. We belled her, which reduced her to two or three birds a year. The bell came off her collar when she got too old, in our judgment, to catch them. She managed one every year and a half or so for a while after that. -- bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 06:56 -0330 |
| Message-ID | <desbavF7g3aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #578796 |
On 2016-01-03 4:21 AM, bill van wrote: > In article <n6a8td12n1h@news6.newsguy.com>, > RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> wrote: > >> On 1/2/2016 3:44 PM, Ross wrote: >>> >>> Nonsense. Cats are quite able to ambush ground-feeding birds, >>> as well as snapping up fallen nestlings, injured birds, etc. >> >> Not the ones in this neighborhood...I've seen them try to hunt, and the >> birds just laugh at them....r > > Depends on the cat. Our recently departed Lucy was starting to bring > birds home regularly - several a week, sometimes on consecutive days - > around 15 years ago. We belled her, which reduced her to two or three > birds a year. The bell came off her collar when she got too old, in our > judgment, to catch them. She managed one every year and a half or so for > a while after that. > A cat I know of managed to catch a young seagull. It didn't actually manage to kill it, but dragged it home through the cat-door. The owner found the bird perched on her dresser when she came home. I've read that hunting in cats is only partly instinct - some cats are much better hunters than others, possibly due to instruction from their mothers early in life. -- Cheryl --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 12:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <601343a4-a611-4843-92aa-7a08d0191d31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578806 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:26:43 PM UTC+13, Cheryl P wrote: > On 2016-01-03 4:21 AM, bill van wrote: > > In article <n6a8td12n1h@news6.newsguy.com>, > > RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> wrote: > > > >> On 1/2/2016 3:44 PM, Ross wrote: > >>> > >>> Nonsense. Cats are quite able to ambush ground-feeding birds, > >>> as well as snapping up fallen nestlings, injured birds, etc. > >> > >> Not the ones in this neighborhood...I've seen them try to hunt, and the > >> birds just laugh at them....r > > > > Depends on the cat. Our recently departed Lucy was starting to bring > > birds home regularly - several a week, sometimes on consecutive days - > > around 15 years ago. We belled her, which reduced her to two or three > > birds a year. The bell came off her collar when she got too old, in our > > judgment, to catch them. She managed one every year and a half or so for > > a while after that. > > > A cat I know of managed to catch a young seagull. It didn't actually > manage to kill it, but dragged it home through the cat-door. The owner > found the bird perched on her dresser when she came home. My mother's family had a story of a large tomcat on the farm who once dragged home a pheasant. > I've read that hunting in cats is only partly instinct - some cats are > much better hunters than others, possibly due to instruction from their > mothers early in life. Quite likely, but I think the impulse to hunt must be innate. They keep doing it even when they don't have to, because it's fun, it's what cats do. At the same time, it does take energy, and they seem to do less of it as they get older.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 08:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n6c45d$csu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #578948 |
On 2016-Jan-04 07:38, Ross wrote: > > Quite likely, but I think the impulse to hunt must be innate. They keep > doing it even when they don't have to, because it's fun, it's what cats > do. At the same time, it does take energy, and they seem to do less of it > as they get older. When my previous cat was getting on in years, the birds used to tease her. They would walk up close to the cat, say something that probably translates as "Nyah, nyah, you can't catch me", and then jump backwards. The cat didn't have enough energy to chase them, but the tail-swishing was almost enough to summon up a small storm. -- Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Newcastle, NSW, Australia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 19:49 -0330 |
| Message-ID | <detok6Fjc1qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #578963 |
On 2016-01-03 6:07 PM, Peter Moylan wrote: > On 2016-Jan-04 07:38, Ross wrote: >> >> Quite likely, but I think the impulse to hunt must be innate. They keep >> doing it even when they don't have to, because it's fun, it's what cats >> do. At the same time, it does take energy, and they seem to do less of it >> as they get older. > > When my previous cat was getting on in years, the birds used to tease > her. They would walk up close to the cat, say something that probably > translates as "Nyah, nyah, you can't catch me", and then jump backwards. > > The cat didn't have enough energy to chase them, but the tail-swishing > was almost enough to summon up a small storm. > One of my previous cats, who had a conviction that she was Empress of the Universe, was allowed out only on a harness and lead and under my direct supervision after a couple of incidents that were probably related to her feelings of omnipotence. So then she thought it would be a good idea to perch on top of the fence when my one of my neighbour's sons left his rottweilers in their back yard while visiting his parents. The poor rotties went hysterical until their owner brought them inside - I'm sure my cat knew perfectly well they couldn't reach her, and was teasing them. -- Cheryl --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 12:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1mghyyf.182dh71msijccN@de-ster.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #578988 |
Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> wrote: > On 2016-01-03 6:07 PM, Peter Moylan wrote: > > On 2016-Jan-04 07:38, Ross wrote: > >> > >> Quite likely, but I think the impulse to hunt must be innate. They keep > >> doing it even when they don't have to, because it's fun, it's what cats > >> do. At the same time, it does take energy, and they seem to do less of it > >> as they get older. > > > > When my previous cat was getting on in years, the birds used to tease > > her. They would walk up close to the cat, say something that probably > > translates as "Nyah, nyah, you can't catch me", and then jump backwards. > > > > The cat didn't have enough energy to chase them, but the tail-swishing > > was almost enough to summon up a small storm. > > > One of my previous cats, who had a conviction that she was Empress of > the Universe, was allowed out only on a harness and lead and under my > direct supervision after a couple of incidents that were probably > related to her feelings of omnipotence. > > So then she thought it would be a good idea to perch on top of the fence > when my one of my neighbour's sons left his rottweilers in their back > yard while visiting his parents. The poor rotties went hysterical until > their owner brought them inside - I'm sure my cat knew perfectly well > they couldn't reach her, and was teasing them. Crows may do the same, actively even, by flying just out of reach over the jumping dogs with their snapping jaws. Comes naturally, in the wild they do the same with wolves, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 07:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <26354888-2af0-4fb2-a94f-0dd2dc99d8c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579061 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:49:55 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> wrote: > > > On 2016-01-03 6:07 PM, Peter Moylan wrote: > > > On 2016-Jan-04 07:38, Ross wrote: > > >> > > >> Quite likely, but I think the impulse to hunt must be innate. They keep > > >> doing it even when they don't have to, because it's fun, it's what cats > > >> do. At the same time, it does take energy, and they seem to do less of it > > >> as they get older. > > > > > > When my previous cat was getting on in years, the birds used to tease > > > her. They would walk up close to the cat, say something that probably > > > translates as "Nyah, nyah, you can't catch me", and then jump backwards. > > > > > > The cat didn't have enough energy to chase them, but the tail-swishing > > > was almost enough to summon up a small storm. > > > > > One of my previous cats, who had a conviction that she was Empress of > > the Universe, was allowed out only on a harness and lead and under my > > direct supervision after a couple of incidents that were probably > > related to her feelings of omnipotence. > > > > So then she thought it would be a good idea to perch on top of the fence > > when my one of my neighbour's sons left his rottweilers in their back > > yard while visiting his parents. The poor rotties went hysterical until > > their owner brought them inside - I'm sure my cat knew perfectly well > > they couldn't reach her, and was teasing them. > > Crows may do the same, actively even, > by flying just out of reach over the jumping dogs > with their snapping jaws. > > Comes naturally, in the wild they do the same with wolves, According to Bernd Heinrich in /The Raven in Winter/, ravens do that to get wolves to follow them to carcasses that the ravens can't open. The ravens will get only scraps, but that's better than nothing. (I don't think he mentions crows.) -- Jerry Friedman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel_cb@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 17:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <devjkbF2qi2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579100 |
On 2016-01-04 16:38:17 +0100, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> said: > [ ... ] > According to Bernd Heinrich in /The Raven in Winter/, ravens do that > to get wolves to follow them to carcasses that the ravens can't open. > The ravens will get only scraps, but that's better than nothing. (I > don't think he mentions crows.) Well, you're the bird expert, Jerry, but in my idiolect ravens _are_ crows. -- athel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n6eml30244g@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #579104 |
On 1/4/2016 9:06 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2016-01-04 16:38:17 +0100, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> > said: > >> [ ... ] > >> According to Bernd Heinrich in /The Raven in Winter/, ravens do that >> to get wolves to follow them to carcasses that the ravens can't open. >> The ravens will get only scraps, but that's better than nothing. (I >> don't think he mentions crows.) > > Well, you're the bird expert, Jerry, but in my idiolect ravens _are_ crows. raven : crow :: bison : cow If you admit subsetting as part of one relationship you have to accept it in both....r
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 19:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f4d3d552590a0e98f3fb@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579185 |
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:00:30 -0700, RH Draney wrote:
> raven : crow :: bison : cow
>
> If you admit subsetting as part of one relationship you have to accept
> it in both....r
Is that subsetting? If so, then I have to disagree. AHD4 defines
ravens and crows as two different species of genus Corvus.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the
/right/ word is ... the difference between the lightning-bug
and the lightning." --Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.usage.english
csiph-web