Member Since Aug 2nd, 2007
Are you Maegan? If So, Login Here.
May 27th 2010 9:32PM First of all, what's with all the hate? Dang, take some chill pills. Did you come to the site just to find someone to belittle and yell at? Do you feel better about yourself now?
Secondly, I have owned cats all my life, and have had every kind of temperament in cats that's possible. I've had non-typical cats: Zippers LOVED car rides, Cuddles LOVES water,etc. I've had the shy and skittish kitties too. I can honestly say that Feliway spray DOES actually work for most cats. Some cats will not show a visible reaction, but most will immediately begin to get calmer. There are plug-in diffusers for Feliway, as well as sprays for cars, bedding, etc. Valerian root powder will also calm them down. Even Catnip can have a calming effect after the first few minutes of Spazz time. Also, try socializing the scaredy cat like you would a stray or feral -- a little at a time. When the cat wants attention, give them as much as they'll take, but the moment they begin to tense or try to get away, let them go. You don't want them to associate "contact" with "being trapped". Leave the cat carrier open in a safe place at all times, that way the cat can begin to get used to it and even play with it when they're not being transported in it. This makes the carrier a safer, friendlier place for them.
Music CAN help, and here's why. Playing a soft music or a TV turned down low gives a steady amount of noise that can cover up noises that scare your cat -- loud children, people at a party, Vacuums, etc. This being said, even playing nature sounds or having one of those "moodscapes" fountains running will do the same thing. A constant sound helps to minimize the shock of a sudden unexpected sound, like something being dropped. This is why music was suggested.
DIGI, to answer you -- try putting the outside cat in one room of your house with all the necessities (food/water/litter etc) and keep the door closed. Your house cat can interact under the door with the outside cat, without them hurting each other. They will both feel safe, and will be able to sniff each other without fighting. When they start being friendly -- calling to each other through the door, constant paw-tagging -- then let them play with each other supervised for a few minutes at a time a day, slowly extending the amount they're together until it's all the time. If things get rough, slow down and reduce the time again. It can take a few days, or it can take a month. It depends on the cats.
Apr 22nd 2010 4:19PM Well, some of the reasons these things have NOT come to pass are as follows:
---- Changes have been made in the way we grow and process our food, leading to more edible foodstuffs and less waste. (therefore, reducing chances of famine)
---- Changes have been made in the amounts and types of gas we use, the allowable limit of greenhouse gases released by coal burning energy plants, and the emissions allowed by any operating motor vehicle. This has reduced the air pollution.
---- Technology is increasing at an exponential rate. Things that were unthinkable in the early 1970's are now so common they are taken for granted. Most of those predictions relied on an UNCHANGING technological environment. They did not take into account the effects of new technology on our food resources, or air quality.
---- Methods of recycling have improved, and become more common and available to more people. Less waste from the plants that make the new products. Less waste falling into landfills.
These are just a very few things that have happened. Someone has to make these changes, over time. Now the "end of the earth" scenarios may be WAY overplayed, but they are real concerns, and every estimate is a best guess that relies on the CURRENT levels of activity and technology. As more people work to make things more earth friendly and sustainable, while reducing our impact on the earth, those estimated dates get pushed back further and further.
Is some of it alarmist propaganda? Oh yes, certainly. And there will always be crazies out there trying to scare you into doing something.
But ignoring these problems doesn't make them go away. It's due in large part to these "green lunatics" efforts that the changes to keep us AWAY from those "imminent disaster(s)" have been made.
I'm not saying "eat only organic, wear only organic, live in a house made of sticks and straw". But how does recycling hurt you? You don't have to be a "lunatic". But just a few changes in your lifestyle -- like using cold water to wash with, a non-phosphate detergent, and changing to compact flourescent bulbs -- would go a long way to reducing your impact.
Oct 13th 2009 6:34PM I hate to tell you, but those charts are outdated and only go by averages. They are not in fact an accurate measure of obesity. For example, check out the story of a 4 month old healthy infant that was denied insurance just because his HEALTHY weight was listed as obese for his age group. If my friend were to be 169 lbs, he would literally be nothing but bones, looking like a holocaust victim. He has a stature somewhat like that of Andre the giant, but without the gut. 222 LBS WOULD STILL BE SICKY THIN. Could he stand to use a few pounds? Certainly.Even up to 50 or 60. But I have seen him at 300, and that really is the ideal weight for him. I do know the difference between the obese and the healthy. I do not defend the choices of those that are morbidly obese by their lifestyles, but neither do I believe that our country should still be clinging to the ideal of the stick thin model and the "greek god" physique as being the only healthy.
Oct 13th 2009 9:45AM "Passengers of size"? This is an unfair title. I am a woman that is 5'11" and 190 lbs, so I am curvy, but not fat, so this is not a rant of my own sensitivity. But my dear friend for years now is a man that is 6'8", and 370 lbs. He may not be all muscle, but this is a healthy weight for him, but his frame is so large that he would need an extra seat on a plane. He is a Big Guy, who needs to buy at the "big and tall" places. His shoes are size 16. He would certainly be a "Passenger of size", but I don't feel he should be forced to pay for a second seat for the uncontrollable accident of Genetics. I say that the stupid airlines keep the fares the same AND give the extra seat. Honestly, is one or two "extra" seats on a plane really going to bankrupt them? I think not.
Apr 15th 2009 11:19PM That sounds like a grand idea! And to chel, you know, there are many many MANY people living and raising families on LESS than 30 grand a year. Try having three kids, sending one to college, and having a special needs child too, and the government telling you that you don't qualify for aid. 60 grand to to take a year off sounds great to me. Trust me, there are ways to save on any salary
Aug 2nd 2007 11:31PM A fair warning to all those out there. Go ahead, get that ultra-dark skin and think you look so pretty. Even if you don't get cancer from it, you'll look 80 when you're 40. It's worse if you smoke. Worse if you drink. Women, young and old, think they are beautifying everytime they lie down in that tanning bed, but they are destroying their health.
And don't try the line about Vitamin D. You only need about 15 minutes of sunlight a day to get enough, and you get that by walking to classes, or to your car, or to work, to get the mail, etc, while wearing an SPF 15.
Too much of a good thing isn't good. Take care of yourself now. You've only got one body, so take care of it. It will take care of you later on.
Aug 2nd 2007 11:26PM Alright, You haev some valid points. I'm 20 years old, myself, and a college student. My family has a long history of skin cancer, and I have always been careful to apply sunscreen every day. Wrinkles show you're age, yes, but Cancer is a much more serious effect of the sun.
Not all youth are so concerned with wrinkles, but in this day in age, we look at the big screen and see women in their 40's, 50's even 60's who look like they are only 25 or 30. This is a high-pressure world, demanding that women be as beuatiful as they can be, and do whatever they can to achieve it. Tan is in, and people are making a lot of money off of it.
I have only been to a tanning bed once, and decided that i could live without tan skin. As I see it, when other women in my age group are looking twice their age in about 20 years, I'll be looking great. When they are having to get melanoma removed from their overly baked noses and cheeks, I'll still have smooth skin.
While it's pathetic to have to utilize vanity to get people to take care of themselves, if it works, it is worth it. I commend that professor.