On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Jim Rosso wrote:

>
> I am concerned that if I don't reply to this unfortunate posting then I
> imply that I support such a terrible tone. I am very disappointed that you
> feel compelled to write such stuff. The rest of us mere mortals have to
> deal with life as it unfolds and try to make the best of situations. I
> think we should be supportive of those efforts.
>
> Jim Rosso
>
> At 09:27 AM 8/20/99 -0700, Mary Manson wrote:
>
> >
> >Excuse my asking - but why bother ? Your bird house appears to be
> >for cat-play purposes ..... ;- { .....
> >
>
Jim et al--

there has been extensive discussion about the damage cats
do to wild life when they are allowed to roam free outside.
We've gone around and around about this and it even resulted
in what is now referred to as "The Dreaded Cat Thread"...
we were presented with stat after stat about the damage
free ranging cats do.

I don't see why anyone should be upset about Mary's post.
All she said was, (if you want the implication more directly)
"if you had kept the act indoors, you could have
prevented this unfortunate occurence."

so, I guess I'm less concerned about hurt feelings than I
am about whether the lesson was learned here.. i.e., is
the cat that killed that mother bird going to
be allowed outdoors to continue it's marauding on wildlife?
That's the important question in this sequence of unfortunate
events.. the anguish after the fact won't prevent future
predation..

Tom