When your kids are allergic to your beloved pet... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

little_tippler · 08-01-2005, 03:58 AM

So, this is not my problem but rather a hypthetical question. Not quite sure this should be here but relocate the post if you think it's not right here.

So, I don't have kids, yet, I like to think, but I'd like kids sometime soon, oh in the next 5 years or so. I was talking to a friend recently about the problem of pets and kids. Ok lots of people have kids and pets together, but what if your kid is totally allergic to (in my case) cats?

It would kill me to give my babies away (meaning my cats), so what can you do? Has anyone had to make the choice? It may sound weird (and of course you'll say "oh you haven't had kids so that's why you think that"), but I think I'd be resentful if I had to give away my beloved pets who have been like my family for years, and always given me unconditional love and companionship. Is this silly of me?

I also hate the way pets seem to be, more and more, treated as disposable nowadays and I think it's so cruel to abandon or give away animals like they're just objects you own.....I'd never forgive myself for doing it.

Destrox · 08-01-2005, 04:18 AM

If it helps, for all 22 years of my life I have been alergic to cats. And for all 22 of those years I've had cats.

This includes when my parents had to make such a choice to get rid of the cats, if you love the pet enough its part of the family too. I am lucky enough that my alergic reaction is only low, and clears up within minutes of leaving the house or going into the basement.

I dont really care how alergic I am to them, I love having cats.

AVoiceOfReason · 08-01-2005, 04:46 AM

Maybe an easier question (for me to answer) has never been asked here--the kids come before the pets. Growing up with allergies is miserable, but to have one inflicited by a parent that can't make the simple choice between the needs of the child and the wants of the selfish adult borders on cruel. After a child is old enough to decide that he wants to be exposed to it, then it's a different story, but that age isn't until they are not emotionally dependant on their parents so as to be able to make an unbiased choice.

Pets are NOT part of the family--they are animals to be enjoyed as part of God's creation. Elevating them to family member status actually demeans the worth of the human components of the family.

And yes, I had dogs and cats growing up, loved them and would have been sad if we couldn't have kept some around because one of my brothers was allergic. But it's really not a tough choice to make if you love the child. If you don't, consider adoption--for the child.

maleficent · 08-01-2005, 05:05 AM

This is somewhat reminiscent of the people vs animals thread we had... On any given day, I think I prefer animals to most people, but.. that's because I don't have any children. When the decision is made to have children, they should become the priority, you might not take extravagent vacations any more, or booze it up any more, all things that you give up because of the child... If, for some odd reason, your child is allergic (and I thought allergies were inherited, but maybe not) then they should be the priority... it's a pet... not a person.

As a kid, I had terrible allergies, I think I was allergic to practically every living thing that bloomed, and underwent allergy shots all spring and summer, thankfully I outgrew most of those allergies, and no longer need the allergy shots, but I wouldn't wish those shots on anyone....

Ustwo · 08-01-2005, 05:52 AM

Bye bye doggie.

I love animals, but I'd never let my child suffer for one. Perhaps because I've had so many pets in my life and have therefore seen so many die, my attachment level is not that high.

astrahl · 08-01-2005, 06:29 AM

Exposing a child to the allergy causing pet may help his/her immune system learn to tolerate it. Some allergies are reversible.

And for AVoiceOfReason: "Pets are NOT part of the family--they are animals to be enjoyed as part of God's creation. Elevating them to family member status actually demeans the worth of the human components of the family." I just don't agree with you. Human life is simply <i>not</i> more important than animal life. In a life and death situation, me or them - me, but to assume at ALL times? ...meh, not so much. I am my dog's mother - my husband isn't demeaned by my love for my dogs.

sapiens · 08-01-2005, 06:48 AM

If my daughter became allergic to our dog,we would send him to live with other members of our family. I know that family would take him. If by some strange turn of events no other members of our family would take him, we would try friends. If not friends, then we would send him to a no-kill shelter.

*Nikki* · 08-01-2005, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

Pets are NOT part of the family--they are animals to be enjoyed as part of God's creation. Elevating them to family member status actually demeans the worth of the human components of the family.

I guess that is an opinion, but definately not at all fact. My pets are part of MY family and if my child was allergic to them I would find a way to make the situation tolerable for all involved. Being that I have had my pets for many many years, and a child would be new to the family, I would definately not dump my pets. Perhaps changing where the pets stayed in the house, etc. I know my FIL is allergic to cats and he stays at my house with my four cats and has no problem. He attributes this to how clean I keep it.

Destrox · 08-01-2005, 06:57 AM

I think we are all interpeting the OP's idea differently.

When I read this I thought allergies as sinus stuffyness, runny nose, occasional nasal infections.

Then I read others posts where its looked at a almost life and death view.

A clarification will certainly give a more centered discussion rather then just having everyone guess to the degree of what the OP ment.

That said,

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

Pets are NOT part of the family--they are animals to be enjoyed as part of God's creation. Elevating them to family member status actually demeans the worth of the human components of the family.

I couldnt disagree with you more, dropping the whole god's creation thing, but pets are part of a family. My current 2 cats have been part of my life for 14 years and counting now. They bring love, happiness, sorrow, and joy. Is that not what a family is?

james t kirk · 08-01-2005, 07:25 AM

Keep the cat in a different part of the house.

Give the cat a bath now and then since it is their dander that causes the problems I believe.

Allergies come and go by the way.

little_tippler · 08-01-2005, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Nikki*

My pets are part of MY family and if my child was allergic to them I would find a way to make the situation tolerable for all involved. Being that I have had my pets for many many years, and a child would be new to the family, I would definately not dump my pets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destrox

I couldnt disagree with you more, dropping the whole god's creation thing, but pets are part of a family. My current 2 cats have been part of my life for 14 years and counting now. They bring love, happiness, sorrow, and joy. Is that not what a family is?

thanks, I was starting to wonder if I was the only one here who felt that pets ARE family. I find this is a real issue and I couldn't just dismiss my pets that way.

To clarify, some kids have severe reactions to certain pets, to the extent it puts them in hospital. Like nut allergies type of thing. I was asking in either case, severe or not severe allergy, where do you stand? I'd have trouble either way. You don't want to put your own children in distress but on the other hand I'd hate myself for giving my cats away...it would be a serious problem for me.

AVoiceOfReason · 08-01-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by little_tippler

You don't want to put your own children in distress but on the other hand I'd hate myself for giving my cats away...it would be a serious problem for me.

I didn't say it wouldn't be a problem--it's just that when you put it to "my child's comfort vs. my desire to have a pet that makes them uncomfortable," there isn't a choice to be made. Stating the problem gives the solution.

Konichiwaneko · 08-01-2005, 08:19 AM

You can choose the have the kid, the cat's already there!

All hail the cat.

Truthfully though I've seen successful conversions to outside cats from indoor because of situations like this.

clavus · 08-01-2005, 09:22 AM

Painful decisions are not difficult decisions if you stick to your principles and commitments.

It doesn't matter how much I love my cat (and I DO love my cat). I've made a commitment to raising my kid in a healthy, safe environment. So if the cat needs to go in order to create this environment, the cat needs to go. I would be sad afterwards, but the decision would be simple.

Zeraph · 08-01-2005, 09:39 AM

Well theres allergies, and then theres allergies...one is a slight annoyance and another is a type of torture. I think personally I'll forgo having any pets until my future children are old enough and even then Ill limit the amount. My aunt goes crazy with em, she has like 10 different pets, most cats.

AVoiceOfReason · 08-01-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clavus

Painful decisions are not difficult decisions if you stick to your principles and commitments.

Well said, not just on this issue, but on all matters in life.

If there's a conflict between the child and the pet, a choice has to be made. It's a sad commentary that some think the dog or cat comes before the wellbeing of the child.

The "But I LOVE that dog/cat/hampster/whatever!" position is about as selfish as it gets. But if someone has as their principle and commitment their wants comes before any other interest, then it's understandable.

And I don't care if we're talking about just a slight runny nose or cough, doing that to a kid that can't move away is just thoughtless at best and heartless at worse. Same goes for smoking around a child that is allergic, or making them eat foods that cause reactions.

Pip · 08-01-2005, 10:45 AM

Sometimes the allergy is so bad you don't have a choice. From a very early age I wasn't even allowed to pet the neighbour's dog because my baby brother could die if I brought dog particles home. I kid thee not. He went to the emergency room more times than I care to count, and sometimes it probably was my fault. Five-year-olds aren't that good at following orders.
Even if my child's allergy wasn't that bad (and given my family history it probably would be that bad) there is no way I'd let my child grow up miserable because there is an animal in our home.

AVoiceOfReason · 08-01-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pip

Even if my child's allergy wasn't that bad (and given my family history it probably would be that bad) there is no way I'd let my child grow up miserable because there is an animal in our home.

And unfortunately, in that case, even having one outside wouldn't be an option. There weren't any types of treatment for your brother?

Pip · 08-02-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

And unfortunately, in that case, even having one outside wouldn't be an option. There weren't any types of treatment for your brother?

Just craploads of strong medication and growing older and stronger. Which he did eventually. I can still beat him in armwrestling with my left arm though.

lindseylatch · 08-02-2005, 04:57 PM

Cat and babies can be a bad mix anyway. Well, babies and any animal can be a bad mix. Babies are annoying and loud and scary to many animals, and they're much more delicate than even most animal babies. So if the animal reacts to the child negatively, it could go very badly.
My sister actually has a similar problem, but it's not allergies. The dog snaps at the kid. And yet she still has the dog...

My dogs are totally a part of the family. However, if ANY member of my family was endangering the life of another, then they would be gone.

If it's mild allergies, the animal would go outside. If it's bad, then I would find a loving and caring home for the animal.

It's not always the dander they're allergic too. My mother is allergic to something in cat saliva. If she's around kittens that aren't cleaning themselves yet, she can handle them fine, but an adult cat, no way.

Hey, you can always get a hairless!!

Meditrina · 08-02-2005, 05:10 PM

This is something I think about on a daily basis. My son, age 3, has allergies but I do not know what he is allergic to yet. I am waiting for a referral to an allergist. I have a cat, whom my son loves very, very much, as do the rest of us. I have made the decision, since my son's allergies are not life threatening, that if he is allergic to the cat, after the cat passes on, there will be no more. My cat is a part of our family. This is not something you would understand unless you were in that situation.

Ustwo · 08-02-2005, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportswidow05

This is something I think about on a daily basis. My son, age 3, has allergies but I do not know what he is allergic to yet. I am waiting for a referral to an allergist. I have a cat, whom my son loves very, very much, as do the rest of us. I have made the decision, since my son's allergies are not life threatening, that if he is allergic to the cat, after the cat passes on, there will be no more. My cat is a part of our family. This is not something you would understand unless you were in that situation.

I love cats, I understand cats, when I go into a home and see a cat the first thing I do is make friends, I am 'cat people'.

My son > my cat, period. I wouldn't put my son on medication for years (how old is this cat?) for a cat.

AVoiceOfReason · 08-02-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportswidow05

This is something I think about on a daily basis. My son, age 3, has allergies but I do not know what he is allergic to yet. I am waiting for a referral to an allergist. I have a cat, whom my son loves very, very much, as do the rest of us. I have made the decision, since my son's allergies are not life threatening, that if he is allergic to the cat, after the cat passes on, there will be no more. My cat is a part of our family. This is not something you would understand unless you were in that situation.

At three years old, he probably does love the cat--because he knows you do. But assuming he is allergic to the animal, it's quite loving of you to decide that just a little misery (but not life threatening, of course) for your son is OK until the cat kicks off so you can have your wants met in this situation. Wonder what choice you'd make if it were life-threatening--you seem as though you'd be conflicted.

You're right, I don't understand that kind of thinking AT ALL. Grow up and be the parent that is looking out for the best interest of the child that can't care for himself yet. Life is not all about YOU.

Pip · 08-03-2005, 01:28 PM

Sportswidow05, I hope they find out what your son is allergic to, and I hope that it's something that's easy to avoid. Avoiding the cause of the allergy is a thousand times better than medicating, especially in a growing child.

Sweetpea · 08-03-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destrox

If it helps, for all 22 years of my life I have been alergic to cats. And for all 22 of those years I've had cats.

This includes when my parents had to make such a choice to get rid of the cats, if you love the pet enough its part of the family too. I am lucky enough that my alergic reaction is only low, and clears up within minutes of leaving the house or going into the basement.

I dont really care how alergic I am to them, I love having cats.

I am going to echo this.

Unless the allergies are truly affecting quality of life of the child, i say keep the cats. My parents knew i was allergic to our cats and yet i insisted we keep them because they brought so much to my life and now as an adult, i am still allergic and have cats of my own

I will note that this does happen quite frequently and i urge people to find a happy home for their pet instead of just dropping them off at the local shelter to die.

Sweetpea

AVoiceOfReason · 08-03-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea

I am going to echo this.

Unless the allergies are truly affecting quality of life of the child, i say keep the cats. My parents knew i was allergic to our cats and yet i insisted we keep them because they brought so much to my life and now as an adult, i am still allergic and have cats of my own

Sweetpea

How do you define "truly affecting quality of life of the child?"

For any considering subjecting a child to such treatment, here's an idea--find a plant that you're allergic to (unless you're one of the lucky ones that aren't allergic to anything--and I'm jealous!). Put it in your bedroom and another in your living area. Instead of ridding the house of the irritant, just treat the symptoms and deal with it. It makes sense that someone that is consciously subjecting another human being to a source of allergic reactions should go through the same thing. You can sniffle and sneeze together, have the same sinus headaches together, dry each other's watery eyes, take the medication and maybe even the shots together--but none of those should affect your "quality of life," right?

The difference is you have a choice--a three year old doesn't. A teenager is borderline about having the maturity to make such choices. That's why the parents are supposed to be the adults--and all that encompasses. An animal that is there to add enjoyment to a household stops serving that purpose when one is made miserable or uncomfortable with it being there. Only a truly selfish person would put his desire to have a pet above the best interests of the health of his child.

The concept of caring about children first and ourselves second really isn't that hard to grasp.

analog · 08-03-2005, 02:53 PM

I love pets, especially since I hate children... but if you have a child and it's allergic to a pet of yours... and your thought process is anything other than "we have to find a new home for this pet", then you are psychotic. Plain and simple. A person's health is not worth less than a pet. If you love the pet so much, find a way to work around it... but if the issue is there's no way around it, get rid of the pet. It shouldn't even be an issue.

uncle phil · 08-03-2005, 03:32 PM

/me agrees with ustwo completely...seriously...

meembo · 08-03-2005, 04:07 PM

We had a hamster for about 9 months, and one son was suffering so badly that I had to keep it out of the house. I tried to find another home for Elvis, but no one wanted him, so one evening I took him way out into the woods and let him go. I'm sure he was some creature's dinner in a matter of hours, but my son was very, very miserable around him. I still feel guilty about it. My mother gave me loads of shit about it -- but she didn't want him, either.

08-01-2005, 03:58 AM	#1 (permalink)
little_tippler Leaning against the -Sun- Super Moderator Location: on the other side	When your kids are allergic to your beloved pet... So, this is not my problem but rather a hypthetical question. Not quite sure this should be here but relocate the post if you think it's not right here. So, I don't have kids, yet, I like to think, but I'd like kids sometime soon, oh in the next 5 years or so. I was talking to a friend recently about the problem of pets and kids. Ok lots of people have kids and pets together, but what if your kid is totally allergic to (in my case) cats? It would kill me to give my babies away (meaning my cats), so what can you do? Has anyone had to make the choice? It may sound weird (and of course you'll say "oh you haven't had kids so that's why you think that"), but I think I'd be resentful if I had to give away my beloved pets who have been like my family for years, and always given me unconditional love and companionship. Is this silly of me? I also hate the way pets seem to be, more and more, treated as disposable nowadays and I think it's so cruel to abandon or give away animals like they're just objects you own.....I'd never forgive myself for doing it. __________________ Whether we write or speak or do but look We are ever unapparent. What we are Cannot be transfused into word or book. Our soul from us is infinitely far. However much we give our thoughts the will To be our soul and gesture it abroad, Our hearts are incommunicable still. In what we show ourselves we are ignored. The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged By any skill of thought or trick of seeming. Unto our very selves we are abridged When we would utter to our thought our being. We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams, And each to each other dreams of others' dreams. Fernando Pessoa, 1918

08-01-2005, 04:18 AM	#2 (permalink)
Destrox Metal and Rock 4 Life Location: Phoenix	If it helps, for all 22 years of my life I have been alergic to cats. And for all 22 of those years I've had cats. This includes when my parents had to make such a choice to get rid of the cats, if you love the pet enough its part of the family too. I am lucky enough that my alergic reaction is only low, and clears up within minutes of leaving the house or going into the basement. I dont really care how alergic I am to them, I love having cats. __________________ You bore me.... next.

08-01-2005, 04:46 AM	#3 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	Maybe an easier question (for me to answer) has never been asked here--the kids come before the pets. Growing up with allergies is miserable, but to have one inflicited by a parent that can't make the simple choice between the needs of the child and the wants of the selfish adult borders on cruel. After a child is old enough to decide that he wants to be exposed to it, then it's a different story, but that age isn't until they are not emotionally dependant on their parents so as to be able to make an unbiased choice. Pets are NOT part of the family--they are animals to be enjoyed as part of God's creation. Elevating them to family member status actually demeans the worth of the human components of the family. And yes, I had dogs and cats growing up, loved them and would have been sad if we couldn't have kept some around because one of my brothers was allergic. But it's really not a tough choice to make if you love the child. If you don't, consider adoption--for the child. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

08-01-2005, 05:05 AM	#4 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	This is somewhat reminiscent of the people vs animals thread we had... On any given day, I think I prefer animals to most people, but.. that's because I don't have any children. When the decision is made to have children, they should become the priority, you might not take extravagent vacations any more, or booze it up any more, all things that you give up because of the child... If, for some odd reason, your child is allergic (and I thought allergies were inherited, but maybe not) then they should be the priority... it's a pet... not a person. As a kid, I had terrible allergies, I think I was allergic to practically every living thing that bloomed, and underwent allergy shots all spring and summer, thankfully I outgrew most of those allergies, and no longer need the allergy shots, but I wouldn't wish those shots on anyone.... __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

08-01-2005, 05:52 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Bye bye doggie. I love animals, but I'd never let my child suffer for one. Perhaps because I've had so many pets in my life and have therefore seen so many die, my attachment level is not that high. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-01-2005, 06:29 AM	#6 (permalink)
astrahl Insane Location: You don't want to live here	Exposing a child to the allergy causing pet may help his/her immune system learn to tolerate it. Some allergies are reversible. And for AVoiceOfReason: "Pets are NOT part of the family--they are animals to be enjoyed as part of God's creation. Elevating them to family member status actually demeans the worth of the human components of the family." I just don't agree with you. Human life is simply <i>not</i> more important than animal life. In a life and death situation, me or them - me, but to assume at ALL times? ...meh, not so much. I am my dog's mother - my husband isn't demeaned by my love for my dogs. __________________ Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed. Maybe Maybe... ~a-Ha

08-01-2005, 06:48 AM	#7 (permalink)
sapiens Junkie Location: Some place windy	If my daughter became allergic to our dog,we would send him to live with other members of our family. I know that family would take him. If by some strange turn of events no other members of our family would take him, we would try friends. If not friends, then we would send him to a no-kill shelter.

08-01-2005, 07:25 AM	#10 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	Keep the cat in a different part of the house. Give the cat a bath now and then since it is their dander that causes the problems I believe. Allergies come and go by the way.

08-01-2005, 08:19 AM	#13 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	You can choose the have the kid, the cat's already there! All hail the cat. Truthfully though I've seen successful conversions to outside cats from indoor because of situations like this. __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.

08-01-2005, 09:22 AM	#14 (permalink)
clavus pow! Location: NorCal	Painful decisions are not difficult decisions if you stick to your principles and commitments. It doesn't matter how much I love my cat (and I DO love my cat). I've made a commitment to raising my kid in a healthy, safe environment. So if the cat needs to go in order to create this environment, the cat needs to go. I would be sad afterwards, but the decision would be simple. __________________ Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

08-01-2005, 09:39 AM	#15 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Well theres allergies, and then theres allergies...one is a slight annoyance and another is a type of torture. I think personally I'll forgo having any pets until my future children are old enough and even then Ill limit the amount. My aunt goes crazy with em, she has like 10 different pets, most cats.

08-01-2005, 10:45 AM	#17 (permalink)
Pip Likes Hats Location: Stockholm, Sweden	Sometimes the allergy is so bad you don't have a choice. From a very early age I wasn't even allowed to pet the neighbour's dog because my baby brother could die if I brought dog particles home. I kid thee not. He went to the emergency room more times than I care to count, and sometimes it probably was my fault. Five-year-olds aren't that good at following orders. Even if my child's allergy wasn't that bad (and given my family history it probably would be that bad) there is no way I'd let my child grow up miserable because there is an animal in our home.

08-02-2005, 04:57 PM	#20 (permalink)
lindseylatch Addict Location: Seattle, WA	Cat and babies can be a bad mix anyway. Well, babies and any animal can be a bad mix. Babies are annoying and loud and scary to many animals, and they're much more delicate than even most animal babies. So if the animal reacts to the child negatively, it could go very badly. My sister actually has a similar problem, but it's not allergies. The dog snaps at the kid. And yet she still has the dog... My dogs are totally a part of the family. However, if ANY member of my family was endangering the life of another, then they would be gone. If it's mild allergies, the animal would go outside. If it's bad, then I would find a loving and caring home for the animal. It's not always the dander they're allergic too. My mother is allergic to something in cat saliva. If she's around kittens that aren't cleaning themselves yet, she can handle them fine, but an adult cat, no way. Hey, you can always get a hairless!! __________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." -Voltaire

08-02-2005, 05:10 PM	#21 (permalink)
Meditrina Junkie Location: LI,NY	This is something I think about on a daily basis. My son, age 3, has allergies but I do not know what he is allergic to yet. I am waiting for a referral to an allergist. I have a cat, whom my son loves very, very much, as do the rest of us. I have made the decision, since my son's allergies are not life threatening, that if he is allergic to the cat, after the cat passes on, there will be no more. My cat is a part of our family. This is not something you would understand unless you were in that situation. __________________ "Toughness is in the soul and spirit, not in muscles." ~Alex Karras

08-03-2005, 01:28 PM	#24 (permalink)
Pip Likes Hats Location: Stockholm, Sweden	Sportswidow05, I hope they find out what your son is allergic to, and I hope that it's something that's easy to avoid. Avoiding the cause of the allergy is a thousand times better than medicating, especially in a growing child.

08-03-2005, 02:53 PM	#27 (permalink)
analog Banned	I love pets, especially since I hate children... but if you have a child and it's allergic to a pet of yours... and your thought process is anything other than "we have to find a new home for this pet", then you are psychotic. Plain and simple. A person's health is not worth less than a pet. If you love the pet so much, find a way to work around it... but if the issue is there's no way around it, get rid of the pet. It shouldn't even be an issue.

08-03-2005, 03:32 PM	#28 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	/me agrees with ustwo completely...seriously... __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it.

08-03-2005, 04:07 PM	#29 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	We had a hamster for about 9 months, and one son was suffering so badly that I had to keep it out of the house. I tried to find another home for Elvis, but no one wanted him, so one evening I took him way out into the woods and let him go. I'm sure he was some creature's dinner in a matter of hours, but my son was very, very miserable around him. I still feel guilty about it. My mother gave me loads of shit about it -- but she didn't want him, either. __________________ less I say, smarter I am