Study Finds Cats Are Killing Machines
http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/cats-killing-animals-pets/2012/08/08/id/447965

Quote:

University of Georgia researchers found that the carnage wrought by prowling kitties is much greater than previously thought. About 30 percent of the house cats in a recent study succeeded in slaying an average of two animals a week. "The previous estimates were probably too conservative because they didn't include the animals that cats ate or left behind," University of Georgia researcher Kerrie Anne Loyd told USA Today. Researchers found the cats brought home just under a quarter of what they killed. They ate 30 percent and left 49 percent to rot. For the study, 60 cat owners in the Athens, Ga., area attached to their pets’ collars tiny video cameras provided by National Geographic Society’s CritterCam program. Lizards, snakes, and frogs made up 41 percent of the animals killed, while small mammals such as chipmunks and moles were 25 percent of the death toll. Insects and worms were another 20 percent, and birds 12 percent, the researchers said. Although birds were not the felines’ most frequent prey, when you figure there are about 74 million house cats in the United States, they are doing serious damage to bird populations, said George Fenwick, president of the American Bird Conservancy. “Cat predation is one of the reasons why one in three American birds species are in decline,” he told USA Today.

With all due respect, restrain your phuking cats, idiots..
And if you don't have the decency to do that then please do not tell us that you 'love animals'.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

Study Finds Cats Are Killing Machines http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/cats-killing-animals-pets/2012/08/08/id/447965 Quote: University of Georgia researchers found that the carnage wrought by prowling kitties is much greater than previously thought. About 30 percent of the house cats in a recent study succeeded in slaying an average of two animals a week. "The previous estimates were probably too conservative because they didn't include the animals that cats ate or left behind," University of Georgia researcher Kerrie Anne Loyd told USA Today. Researchers found the cats brought home just under a quarter of what they killed. They ate 30 percent and left 49 percent to rot. For the study, 60 cat owners in the Athens, Ga., area attached to their pets’ collars tiny video cameras provided by National Geographic Society’s CritterCam program. Lizards, snakes, and frogs made up 41 percent of the animals killed, while small mammals such as chipmunks and moles were 25 percent of the death toll. Insects and worms were another 20 percent, and birds 12 percent, the researchers said. Although birds were not the felines’ most frequent prey, when you figure there are about 74 million house cats in the United States, they are doing serious damage to bird populations, said George Fenwick, president of the American Bird Conservancy. “Cat predation is one of the reasons why one in three American birds species are in decline,” he told USA Today. With all due respect, restrain your phuking cats, idiots..

Another anti-kat rant by the media. They do that every now and then. In america there are lots of animals. There are wild bears and tigers and wolves. The kats are preyed upon as much as they prey.

FYI feral kats in australia prey on small rodents not birds. When they "culled" the kats in dalby suddenly there was a rat plague. Wonder why.

SOB

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

Study Finds Cats Are Killing Machines http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/cats-killing-animals-pets/2012/08/08/id/447965 Quote: University of Georgia researchers found that the carnage wrought by prowling kitties is much greater than previously thought. About 30 percent of the house cats in a recent study succeeded in slaying an average of two animals a week. "The previous estimates were probably too conservative because they didn't include the animals that cats ate or left behind," University of Georgia researcher Kerrie Anne Loyd told USA Today. Researchers found the cats brought home just under a quarter of what they killed. They ate 30 percent and left 49 percent to rot. For the study, 60 cat owners in the Athens, Ga., area attached to their pets’ collars tiny video cameras provided by National Geographic Society’s CritterCam program. Lizards, snakes, and frogs made up 41 percent of the animals killed, while small mammals such as chipmunks and moles were 25 percent of the death toll. Insects and worms were another 20 percent, and birds 12 percent, the researchers said. Although birds were not the felines’ most frequent prey, when you figure there are about 74 million house cats in the United States, they are doing serious damage to bird populations, said George Fenwick, president of the American Bird Conservancy. “Cat predation is one of the reasons why one in three American birds species are in decline,” he told USA Today. With all due respect, restrain your phuking cats, idiots.. And if you don't have the decency to do that then please do not tell us that you 'love animals'.

Not that many chipmunks or moles round my way.
My cats must have eaten them all.

Quote:

Another anti-kat rant by the media. They do that every now and then. In america there are lots of animals. There are wild bears and tigers and wolves. The kats are preyed upon as much as they prey.

Actually its a scientific study but oh well.
The fact you need to post irrelevant information sort of shows your predicament.


Quote:

FYI feral kats in australia prey on small rodents not birds. When they "culled" the kats in dalby suddenly there was a rat plague. Wonder why.

Link?


Quote:

Lizards, snakes, and frogs made up 41 percent of the animals killed

???

Quote:

Not that many chipmunks or moles round my way. My cats must have eaten them all.

If my position was incorrect like your demeanor presumes then why would you need to ignore 99% of the article?

And its funny you bring that up because we obviously have similar animals, but ones that are in most cases much slower so you could presume the destruction would be far greater.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 2:18pm:

Quote: Not that many chipmunks or moles round my way. My cats must have eaten them all. If my position was incorrect like your demeanor presumes then why would you need to ignore 99% of the article? And its funny you bring that up because we obviously have similar animals, but ones that are in most cases much slower so you could presume the destruction would be far greater.

I didn't say your position is incorrect.  I accept that cats kill little animals.  But guess what?

I don't care. 

I see what my cats kill, becasue they leave the carcasses lying around - field mice and small birds.  Nothing important. 


So what's your plan Saul? 

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 2:22pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 2:18pm: Quote: Not that many chipmunks or moles round my way. My cats must have eaten them all. If my position was incorrect like your demeanor presumes then why would you need to ignore 99% of the article? And its funny you bring that up because we obviously have similar animals, but ones that are in most cases much slower so you could presume the destruction would be far greater. I didn't say your position is incorrect.  I accept that cats kill little animals.  But guess what? I don't care.  I see what my cats kill, becasue they leave the carcasses lying around - field mice and small birds.  Nothing important.  So what's your plan Saul?

So its ok for me to kill your cats?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 2:26pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 2:22pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 2:18pm: Quote: Not that many chipmunks or moles round my way. My cats must have eaten them all. If my position was incorrect like your demeanor presumes then why would you need to ignore 99% of the article? And its funny you bring that up because we obviously have similar animals, but ones that are in most cases much slower so you could presume the destruction would be far greater. I didn't say your position is incorrect.  I accept that cats kill little animals.  But guess what? I don't care.  I see what my cats kill, becasue they leave the carcasses lying around - field mice and small birds.  Nothing important.  So what's your plan Saul?  So its ok for me to kill your cats?

I wouldn't recommend it. 

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 2:27pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 2:26pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 2:22pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 2:18pm: Quote: Not that many chipmunks or moles round my way. My cats must have eaten them all. If my position was incorrect like your demeanor presumes then why would you need to ignore 99% of the article? And its funny you bring that up because we obviously have similar animals, but ones that are in most cases much slower so you could presume the destruction would be far greater. I didn't say your position is incorrect.  I accept that cats kill little animals.  But guess what? I don't care.  I see what my cats kill, becasue they leave the carcasses lying around - field mice and small birds.  Nothing important.  So what's your plan Saul?  So its ok for me to kill your cats? I wouldn't recommend it.

So you have the right to kill things but I do not? And you defend that right with threats of violence? Hmm you sound like a dictator...

Using your logic it would however be ok for me to use a cat to kill your cat.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 2:31pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 2:27pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 2:26pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 2:22pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 2:18pm: Quote: Not that many chipmunks or moles round my way. My cats must have eaten them all. If my position was incorrect like your demeanor presumes then why would you need to ignore 99% of the article? And its funny you bring that up because we obviously have similar animals, but ones that are in most cases much slower so you could presume the destruction would be far greater. I didn't say your position is incorrect.  I accept that cats kill little animals.  But guess what? I don't care.  I see what my cats kill, becasue they leave the carcasses lying around - field mice and small birds.  Nothing important.  So what's your plan Saul?  So its ok for me to kill your cats? I wouldn't recommend it.  So you have the right to kill things but I do not?

I don't kill 'em.  My cats do. Thats what cats do - they kill.


Quote:

And you defend that right with threats of violence?

Harm someone I care about and what do you think is going to happen?  Newsflash buddy - I'm not one of the "violence doesn't solve anything" crowd. 


Quote:

Using your logic it would however be ok for me to use a cat to kill your cat.

OK mate.  You start training a cat to do your bidding and let me know how that goes.   ;D ;D ;D



Soooo did you have a plan, or are you just picking a cyber-fight?

Quote:

I don't kill 'em.  My cats do. Thats what cats do - they kill.

You do realise that part of the legal responsibility of a pet owner is to stop your pet from harming other animals, not doing that is grounds to have your pet taken away from you.


Quote:

Harm someone I care about and what do you think is going to happen?  Newsflash buddy - I'm not one of the "violence doesn't solve anything" crowd.

Haha you have phucked yourself with logic.
If I care about native animals I now have the right to hurt you and your cat.

You loose.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 2:58pm:

Quote: I don't kill 'em.  My cats do. Thats what cats do - they kill. You do realise that part of the legal responsibility of a pet owner is to stop your pet from harming other animals, not doing that is grounds to have your pet taken away from you.

You can't just invent laws Saul. 



Quote:

Harm someone I care about and what do you think is going to happen?  Newsflash buddy - I'm not one of the "violence doesn't solve anything" crowd.

Haha you have phucked yourself with logic.
If I care about native animals I now have the right to hurt you and your cat.

You loose.
[/quote]

No, you don't have that "right".  But even if you did, you'd still lack the ability.

3rd time lucky - What's your plan Saul?

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 3:10pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 2:58pm: Quote: I don't kill 'em.  My cats do. Thats what cats do - they kill. You do realise that part of the legal responsibility of a pet owner is to stop your pet from harming other animals, not doing that is grounds to have your pet taken away from you. You can't just invent laws Saul.  [quote] Harm someone I care about and what do you think is going to happen?  Newsflash buddy - I'm not one of the "violence doesn't solve anything" crowd.

Haha you have phucked yourself with logic.
If I care about native animals I now have the right to hurt you and your cat.

You loose.
[/quote]

No, you don't have that "right".  But even if you did, you'd still lack the ability.

3rd time lucky - What's your plan Saul?[/quote]
So you are saying that pet owners have no legal responsibility to stop their pets from killing other animals?

Right so when did you become dictator of Australia? The only person aloud to kill things and hurt others...

You know you loose so just admit it.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

So you are saying that pet owners have no legal responsibility to stop their pets from killing other animals?

That'd vary from council to council.  No law on the books = no legal responsibility.  Of course only a fool would make no distinction between field mice and endangered species, or peoples pets.  So I guess that'd be you...


Quote:

Right so when did you become dictator of Australia? The only person aloud to kill things and hurt others... You know you loose so just admit it.

I'd expect anyone and everyone to fight to protect those they care about.  What part of that don't you understand?


WHAT'S YOUR PLAN SAUL?

Quote:

That'd vary from council to council.  No law on the books = no legal responsibility.  Of course only a fool would make no distinction between field mice and endangered species, or peoples pets.  So I guess that'd be you...

Yeah there are, pet owners get charged all the time for failure to properly look after an animal.
I thought that you only had to care for it?
How is your pet more important then an endangered species?


Quote:

I'd expect anyone and everyone to fight to protect those they care about.  What part of that don't you understand? WHAT'S YOUR PLAN SAUL?

Clearly you are the one who does not understand that but I guess you can be forgiven dictator.

Well I know your plan is to keep talking shyt even tho you know you have lost.
You have only been able to use deceptive logic as opposed to facts, which on its own is an indicator as to how your position is flawed, the fact that your own logic can be used to destroy your own argument cements the fact that you are talking out of your ass.
You loose.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:

Quote: That'd vary from council to council.  No law on the books = no legal responsibility.  Of course only a fool would make no distinction between field mice and endangered species, or peoples pets.  So I guess that'd be you... Yeah there are, pet owners get charged all the time for failure to properly look after an animal.

Well then obviously in the councils they live in, there is a law for them to be charged under.  Did you miss the part where I said it varies from council to council?


Quote:

How is your pet more important then an endangered species?

Because it's mine.  What makes your own mother more important than some anonymous drunken bum down at the train station?????????

Although the intention was to highlight the difference between field mice (ie what my cats kill) and endangered species /other peoples pets. (what my cats don't kill) My Bad - It was silly of me to expect you to get it.


Quote:

I'd expect anyone and everyone to fight to protect those they care about.  What part of that don't you understand? WHAT'S YOUR PLAN SAUL?

Clearly you are the one who does not understand that but I guess you can be forgiven dictator.

Well I know your plan is to keep talking shyt even tho you know you have lost.
You have only been able to use deceptive logic as opposed to facts, which on its own is an indicator as to how your position is flawed, the fact that your own logic can be used to destroy your own argument cements the fact that you are talking out of your ass.
You loose.[/quote]


You do know that just repeating  "you loose" (sic) doesn't magically make a coherent argument appear in your favour don't you? You haven't even told me what your plan is, and all I've said is don't try to kill my cats!  WTF is your damage boy?

Quote:

Well then obviously in the councils they live in, there is a law for them to be charged under.  Did you miss the part where I said it varies from council to council?

In all councils pet owners are expected to properly care for their animals, letting their domesticated animal kill things is not proper care and is therefore illegal.

Quote:

Because it's mine.  What makes your own mother more important than some anonymous drunken bum down at the train station????????? Although the intention was to highlight the difference between field mice (ie what my cats kill) and endangered species /other peoples pets. (what my cats don't kill) My Bad - It was silly of me to expect you to get it.

Native animals are yours as well.
Your cats kill more then field mice and you know it.


Quote:

ou do know that just repeating  "you loose" (sic) doesn't magically make a coherent argument appear in your favour don't you? You haven't even told me what your plan is, and all I've said is don't try to kill my cats!  WTF is your damage boy?

You disgust me.
You are the only one lacking a coherent argument.

yeah, you probably should know that saying "you disgust me" doesn't make a coherent argument either. 

You had time to think of a plan yet?

No...oh well let me know when you do OK? 

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

yeah, you probably should know that saying "you disgust me" doesn't make a coherent argument either.  You had time to think of a plan yet? No...oh well let me know when you do OK?

Hahahaha
You loose.
Your own 'argument' can be destroyed using your own logic....
Hahaha
Looks like you made my plan for me.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:33pm: yeah, you probably should know that saying "you disgust me" doesn't make a coherent argument either.  You had time to think of a plan yet? No...oh well let me know when you do OK?  Hahahaha You loose. Your own 'argument' can be destroyed using your own logic.... Hahaha Looks like you made my plan for me.

I didn't even realise I had put for ward an argument of any greater complexity than "don't kill my family pet" but you've obviously found some greater meaning.

Good.

So let's hear this plan then.

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:39pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:36pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:33pm: yeah, you probably should know that saying "you disgust me" doesn't make a coherent argument either.  You had time to think of a plan yet? No...oh well let me know when you do OK?  Hahahaha You loose. Your own 'argument' can be destroyed using your own logic.... Hahaha Looks like you made my plan for me. I didn't even realise I had put for ward an argument of any greater complexity than "don't kill my family pet" but you've obviously found some greater meaning. Good. So let's hear this plan then.

Why can't you just admit you lost?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:39pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:36pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:33pm: yeah, you probably should know that saying "you disgust me" doesn't make a coherent argument either.  You had time to think of a plan yet? No...oh well let me know when you do OK?  Hahahaha You loose. Your own 'argument' can be destroyed using your own logic.... Hahaha Looks like you made my plan for me. I didn't even realise I had put for ward an argument of any greater complexity than "don't kill my family pet" but you've obviously found some greater meaning. Good. So let's hear this plan then. Why can't you just admit you lost?

The words would be a bit empty wouldn't they?

What game were we playing again?

Hey Saul.  You might find this troubling, but my cats aren't even the best mousers in my house - the dog is even better at it.  3.2kg of pure mouse-hunting fury. 

And you shoulda seen when a family of field mice dared set up home in my chickens house.  I never knew chickens ate mice until then, but it was a massacre the likes of which you've never seen!  They're a bloodthirsty bunch I can tell you!

Quote:

I didn't even realise I had put for ward an argument of any greater complexity than "don't kill my family pet" but you've obviously found some greater meaning.

Well firstly you actually said that you shouldn't kill an animal someone cares about.
Which would mean that it is wrong for cats to kill native animals.

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:48pm:

Hey Saul.  You might find this troubling, but my cats aren't even the best mousers in my house - the dog is even better at it.  3.2kg of pure mouse-hunting fury.  And you shoulda seen when a family of field mice dared set up home in my chickens house.  I never knew chickens ate mice until then, but it was a massacre the likes of which you've never seen!  They're a bloodthirsty bunch I can tell you!

Yes but your dog doesn't run free around your neighborhood does it?

Obvious that you know you lost now trying to sneakily start a new angle of irrelevant attack.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

Quote: I didn't even realise I had put for ward an argument of any greater complexity than "don't kill my family pet" but you've obviously found some greater meaning. Well firstly you actually said that you shouldn't kill an animal someone cares about. Which would mean that it is wrong for cats to kill native animals.

Strange.

Nobody ever came around asking what happened to their field mice.  I guess noone cared.   :'(

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:49pm: Quote: I didn't even realise I had put for ward an argument of any greater complexity than "don't kill my family pet" but you've obviously found some greater meaning. Well firstly you actually said that you shouldn't kill an animal someone cares about. Which would mean that it is wrong for cats to kill native animals. Strange. Nobody ever came around asking what happened to their field mice.  I guess noone cared.   :'(

So you admit you lost?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Hey Saul.  You might find this troubling, but my cats aren't even the best mousers in my house - the dog is even better at it.  3.2kg of pure mouse-hunting fury.  And you shoulda seen when a family of field mice dared set up home in my chickens house.  I never knew chickens ate mice until then, but it was a massacre the likes of which you've never seen!  They're a bloodthirsty bunch I can tell you! Yes but your dog doesn't run free around your neighborhood does it? Obvious that you know you lost now trying to sneakily start a new angle of irrelevant attack.

She doesn't need to run free - the mice come to us!  I've even been known to corner them and when the cats are too lazy to do the job, the dog is right onto 'em.  I guess that makes me an accomplice to mouse murder.   I've also been known to swat flies and crush cockroaches.  What a bad, bad man I am!

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:55pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:50pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Hey Saul.  You might find this troubling, but my cats aren't even the best mousers in my house - the dog is even better at it.  3.2kg of pure mouse-hunting fury.  And you shoulda seen when a family of field mice dared set up home in my chickens house.  I never knew chickens ate mice until then, but it was a massacre the likes of which you've never seen!  They're a bloodthirsty bunch I can tell you! Yes but your dog doesn't run free around your neighborhood does it? Obvious that you know you lost now trying to sneakily start a new angle of irrelevant attack. She doesn't need to run free - the mice come to us!  I've even been known to corner them and when the cats are too lazy to do the job, the dog is right onto 'em.  I guess that makes me an accomplice to mouse murder.

Well ok we both know you lost so I will talk to you when you come up with a legitimate argument.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:51pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:49pm: Quote: I didn't even realise I had put for ward an argument of any greater complexity than "don't kill my family pet" but you've obviously found some greater meaning. Well firstly you actually said that you shouldn't kill an animal someone cares about. Which would mean that it is wrong for cats to kill native animals. Strange. Nobody ever came around asking what happened to their field mice.  I guess noone cared.   :'( So you admit you lost?

well...


If it means that much to you...


nah dickhead. ELVIS WESLEY FOR THE WIN!!!

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 4:57pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:55pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:50pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Hey Saul.  You might find this troubling, but my cats aren't even the best mousers in my house - the dog is even better at it.  3.2kg of pure mouse-hunting fury.  And you shoulda seen when a family of field mice dared set up home in my chickens house.  I never knew chickens ate mice until then, but it was a massacre the likes of which you've never seen!  They're a bloodthirsty bunch I can tell you! Yes but your dog doesn't run free around your neighborhood does it? Obvious that you know you lost now trying to sneakily start a new angle of irrelevant attack. She doesn't need to run free - the mice come to us!  I've even been known to corner them and when the cats are too lazy to do the job, the dog is right onto 'em.  I guess that makes me an accomplice to mouse murder.    Well ok we both know you lost so I will talk to you when you come up with a legitimate argument.

Oh ok.  let me see...legitimate argument...legitimate argument.......

AHA!

got it!  How about "don't kill my family pets"

legitimate enough for you?

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:00pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:57pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:55pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:50pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Hey Saul.  You might find this troubling, but my cats aren't even the best mousers in my house - the dog is even better at it.  3.2kg of pure mouse-hunting fury.  And you shoulda seen when a family of field mice dared set up home in my chickens house.  I never knew chickens ate mice until then, but it was a massacre the likes of which you've never seen!  They're a bloodthirsty bunch I can tell you! Yes but your dog doesn't run free around your neighborhood does it? Obvious that you know you lost now trying to sneakily start a new angle of irrelevant attack. She doesn't need to run free - the mice come to us!  I've even been known to corner them and when the cats are too lazy to do the job, the dog is right onto 'em.  I guess that makes me an accomplice to mouse murder.    Well ok we both know you lost so I will talk to you when you come up with a legitimate argument. Oh ok.  let me see...legitimate argument...legitimate argument....... AHA! got it!  How about "don't kill my family pets" legitimate enough for you?

Well no need to point out you are admitting your first argument was wrong..

So it is ok to kill family pets if they are not cared about right?


Quote:

[quote] Harm someone I care about and what do you think is going to happen?  Newsflash buddy - I'm not one of the "violence doesn't solve anything" crowd.

Haha you have phucked yourself with logic.
If I care about native animals I now have the right to hurt you and your cat.
[/quote]

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:03pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 5:00pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:57pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:55pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:50pm: [quote author=6F7D6B747D61166871687D6B380 link=1345002323/22#22 date=1345013300]Hey Saul.  You might find this troubling, but my cats aren't even the best mousers in my house - the dog is even better at it.  3.2kg of pure mouse-hunting fury.  And you shoulda seen when a family of field mice dared set up home in my chickens house.  I never knew chickens ate mice until then, but it was a massacre the likes of which you've never seen!  They're a bloodthirsty bunch I can tell you! Yes but your dog doesn't run free around your neighborhood does it? Obvious that you know you lost now trying to sneakily start a new angle of irrelevant attack. She doesn't need to run free - the mice come to us!  I've even been known to corner them and when the cats are too lazy to do the job, the dog is right onto 'em.  I guess that makes me an accomplice to mouse murder.    Well ok we both know you lost so I will talk to you when you come up with a legitimate argument. Oh ok.  let me see...legitimate argument...legitimate argument....... AHA! got it!  How about "don't kill my family pets" legitimate enough for you?

Well no need to point out you are admitting your first argument was wrong..

So it is ok to kill family pets if they are not cared about right?

[quote]

Well people generally care about their pets.  They wouldn't keep them otherwise.

Look dickhead, it's been a little bit of fun, but this faux-concern for the lives of bloody field mice is getting a little bit old.

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:10pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 5:03pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 5:00pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:57pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:55pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 4:50pm: [quote author=6F7D6B747D61166871687D6B380 link=1345002323/22#22 date=1345013300]Hey Saul.  You might find this troubling, but my cats aren't even the best mousers in my house - the dog is even better at it.  3.2kg of pure mouse-hunting fury.  And you shoulda seen when a family of field mice dared set up home in my chickens house.  I never knew chickens ate mice until then, but it was a massacre the likes of which you've never seen!  They're a bloodthirsty bunch I can tell you! Yes but your dog doesn't run free around your neighborhood does it? Obvious that you know you lost now trying to sneakily start a new angle of irrelevant attack. She doesn't need to run free - the mice come to us!  I've even been known to corner them and when the cats are too lazy to do the job, the dog is right onto 'em.  I guess that makes me an accomplice to mouse murder.    Well ok we both know you lost so I will talk to you when you come up with a legitimate argument. Oh ok.  let me see...legitimate argument...legitimate argument....... AHA! got it!  How about "don't kill my family pets" legitimate enough for you? Well no need to point out you are admitting your first argument was wrong.. So it is ok to kill family pets if they are not cared about right? [quote] Well people generally care about their pets.  They wouldn't keep them otherwise. Look dickhead, it's been a little bit of fun, but this faux-concern for the lives of bloody field mice is getting a little bit old.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Still can't admit you lost.
Over compensating me thinks.

OK well if this is a competition of who cares the most about field mice, you win.

Otherwise...read 'em and weep.

http://www.rawfedcats.org/images/catfod-mouse_Full.jpg

GASP!  THE HORROR!

[img]http://photos.jibble.org/Wildlife%20and%20Pets/Silver%20Tabby%20Cat/Catching%20a%20Mouse/IMG_4939%20Cat%20playing%20with%20a%20mouse.JPG[img]

Oh the humanity!

Did you even read the research I posted?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:23pm:

Did you even read the research I posted?

cats kill poo.  No great secret - Who needs research to tell them that? 

Oh yeah - you. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTxPjdF3qGA

"reserach" has found that cats can kill more than just petty field mice! 

Are you gonna be OK Saul? 

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:24pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 5:23pm: Did you even read the research I posted? cats kill poo.  No great secret - Who needs research to tell them that?  Oh yeah - you.

Coming from the guy who thinks they only kill mice?
Clearly you do need research:

Quote:

Lizards, snakes, and frogs made up 41 percent of the animals killed,

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:27pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTxPjdF3qGA "reserach" has found that cats can kill more than just petty field mice!  Are you gonna be OK Saul?

They are native to that area tho!
Idiot

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:29pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 5:27pm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTxPjdF3qGA "reserach" has found that cats can kill more than just petty field mice!  Are you gonna be OK Saul?  They are native to that area tho! Idiot

I see.  So what would you do with all these non-native species? (especially humans)

Please just admit you lost so we can end this.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:28pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 5:24pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 5:23pm: Did you even read the research I posted? cats kill poo.  No great secret - Who needs research to tell them that?  Oh yeah - you.  Coming from the guy who thinks they only kill mice? Clearly you do need research: Quote: Lizards, snakes, and frogs made up 41 percent of the animals killed,

Do I think that do I?  Seems strange that I'd say this then:


Quote:

I see what my cats kill, becasue they leave the carcasses lying around - field mice and small birds.  Nothing important.

Would it be OK if I pointed out that that reserach is from the US, where the ecosystems are different? 

Would it be OK if I pointed out that my cats are well fed, and far too dam lazy to even move themselves off my bed most of the time, let alone hunt?

Would it be OK to point out theres not a helluva lot of endangered species in the suburbs of Perth?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

Please just admit you lost so we can end this.

Why would I do that?  I'm not a liar. 

Quote:

Do I think that do I?  Seems strange that I'd say this then:

Either way you are still ignoring the majority of the animals that they kill.

Quote:

Would it be OK if I pointed out that that reserach is from the US, where the ecosystems are different?

How are they different in anyway that would affect the animals they kill?

Quote:

Would it be OK if I pointed out that my cats are well fed, and far too dam lazy to even move themselves off my bed most of the time, let alone hunt?

You said yourself that you see some of the stuff they kill?

Quote:

Would it be OK to point out theres not a helluva lot of endangered species in the suburbs of Perth?

But you said yourself that its animals that people care about that shouldn't be killed, so they do not need to be endangered just cared about..

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:35pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 5:33pm: Please just admit you lost so we can end this. Why would I do that?  I'm not a liar.

If you didn't losse you wouldn't of had to change your argument 10 times over would you?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:43pm:

Quote: Do I think that do I?  Seems strange that I'd say this then: Either way you are still ignoring the majority of the animals that they kill.

Nnnno I'm not.  They kill mostly field mice, with the odd willy wagtail.



Quote:

Would it be OK if I pointed out that that reserach is from the US, where the ecosystems are different?

How are they different in anyway that would affect the animals they kill?
[/quote]

Well I already pointed out we don't have chipmunks and moles. They can't kill what isn't there...


Quote:

Would it be OK if I pointed out that my cats are well fed, and far too dam lazy to even move themselves off my bed most of the time, let alone hunt?

You said yourself that you see some of the stuff they kill?
[/quote]

Yeah, I didn't sat they didn't kill, (well, 1 of them doesn't) I said they don't kill anything important, and not terribly often either.


Quote:

Would it be OK to point out theres not a helluva lot of endangered species in the suburbs of Perth?

But you said yourself that its animals that people care about that shouldn't be killed, so they do not need to be endangered just cared about..
[/quote]

You still gonna pretend you care about the mice that foolishly decided to call my propertry home?  lets cut the bullshit - nobody cares about them , least of all you.

Quote:

Nnnno I'm not.  They kill mostly field mice, with the odd willy wagtail.

Link?

Quote:

Well I already pointed out we don't have chipmunks and moles. They can't kill what isn't there...

*facepalm*

Quote:

Yeah, I didn't sat they didn't kill, (well, 1 of them doesn't) I said they don't kill anything important, and not terribly often either.

Except you don't know that.

Quote:

ou still gonna pretend you care about the mice that foolishly decided to call my propertry home?  lets cut the bullshit - nobody cares about them , least of all you.

Still going on about the mice?
If you were so right why would you need to ignore 90% of the other animals they kill?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 5:54pm:

Quote: Nnnno I'm not.  They kill mostly field mice, with the odd willy wagtail. Link?

Sorry, I don't log and post to the internet the exact details of each of my cats kills.  :D


Quote:

Well I already pointed out we don't have chipmunks and moles. They can't kill what isn't there...

*facepalm*

realised your idiocy on that one eh? 

Forgiven.



Quote:

Yeah, I didn't sat they didn't kill, (well, 1 of them doesn't) I said they don't kill anything important, and not terribly often either.

Except you don't know that.
[/quote]

yes I do.  I live with them dickhead. They are old and very, very predictable.


Quote:

ou still gonna pretend you care about the mice that foolishly decided to call my propertry home?  lets cut the bullshit - nobody cares about them , least of all you.

Still going on about the mice?
If you were so right why would you need to ignore 90% of the other animals they kill?[/quote]

Umm...Because 90% of what they kill are mice.  5% birds, 5% misecellaneous.  Why the bugger would you think you know my situation better than I do?

Quote:

Sorry, I don't log and post to the internet the exact details of each of my cats kills.

We're not just talking about your cats idiot.

Quote:

realised your idiocy on that one eh? Forgiven.

You yourself have pointed out an animal similar to them.

Quote:

yes I do.  I live with them dickhead. They are old and very, very predictable.

How could you possibly know? You don't follow them all day do you?

Quote:

Umm...Because 90% of what they kill are mice.  5% birds, 5% misecellaneous.  Why the bugger would you think you know my situation better than I do?

Except you can't back that up with fact and I have presented evidence to show this is absolutely incorrect.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 6:08pm:

[We're not just talking about your cats idiot.

I am. Who elses cats would I be talking about when I repeatedly say MY cats?


Quote:

You yourself have pointed out an animal similar to them.

I'm not sure what "them" you're referring to, but I can assure we they don't live in my suburb.



Quote:

Except you can't back that up with fact and I have presented evidence to show this is absolutely incorrect.

Your study from the US? 

Do I really need to point out why you might need to adjust that to an australian audience?  Again.

Ignorance is bliss.

You'd know.

Your only argument for the study being irrelevant is that we don't have chipmunks and moles, even tho we do have many equivalents lets exclude that category from the equation.
Over 80% of the study is still relevant:
Lizards, snakes, and frogs made up 41 percent of the animals killed, while small mammals such as chipmunks and moles were 25 percent of the death toll. Insects and worms were another 20 percent, and birds 12 percent, the researchers said.

Try again

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 6:21pm:

Your only argument for the study being irrelevant is that we don't have chipmunks and moles, even tho we do have many equivalents lets exclude that category from the equation. Over 80% of the study is still relevant: Lizards, snakes, and frogs made up 41 percent of the animals killed, while small mammals such as chipmunks and moles were 25 percent of the death toll. Insects and worms were another 20 percent, and birds 12 percent, the researchers said. Try again

And it never occurred to you that the make up of their kills will be reflective of the wildlife in the area in which the study was done?  That it doesn't apply in equal measure in another area on another continent?

Interesting to see you shedding tears over insects and worms now too.

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 6:27pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 6:21pm: Your only argument for the study being irrelevant is that we don't have chipmunks and moles, even tho we do have many equivalents lets exclude that category from the equation. Over 80% of the study is still relevant: Lizards, snakes, and frogs made up 41 percent of the animals killed, while small mammals such as chipmunks and moles were 25 percent of the death toll. Insects and worms were another 20 percent, and birds 12 percent, the researchers said. Try again And it never occurred to you that the make up of their kills will be reflective of the wildlife in the area in which the study was done?  Interesting to see you shedding tears over insects and worms now too.

There are plenty of lizards, snakes, frogs, small mammals, insects and worms in and around perth?

If they are native then they have more right to be living then your cat.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 6:29pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 6:27pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 6:21pm: Your only argument for the study being irrelevant is that we don't have chipmunks and moles, even tho we do have many equivalents lets exclude that category from the equation. Over 80% of the study is still relevant: Lizards, snakes, and frogs made up 41 percent of the animals killed, while small mammals such as chipmunks and moles were 25 percent of the death toll. Insects and worms were another 20 percent, and birds 12 percent, the researchers said. Try again And it never occurred to you that the make up of their kills will be reflective of the wildlife in the area in which the study was done?  Interesting to see you shedding tears over insects and worms now too. There are plenty of lizards, snakes, frogs, small mammals, insects and worms in and around perth? If they are native then they have more right to be living then your cat.

Indeed there are.  But they will be different types of lizards, snakes, frogs, small mammals insects and worms, therefore, the proportions killed will not be the same.  I don't expect my cats have killed too many tiger snakes, which will be the only snakes you'll get round here.  Maybe they got a couple of those little geckos, but I think they'd be too fast to be common prey.  Frogs - possibly, but they only come out when its wet - and the cats won't venture out. 

And as for the small mammals (ie field mice) insects and worms - yep, they've killed a ton, but who gives a poo?

Quote:

Indeed there are.  But they will be different types of lizards, snakes, frogs, small mammals insects and worms, therefore, the proportions killed will not be the same.  I don't expect my cats have killed too many tiger snakes, which will be the only snakes you'll get round here.  Maybe they got a couple of those little geckos, but I think they'd be too fast to be common prey.  Frogs - possibly, but they only come out when its wet - and the cats won't venture out. And as for the small mammals (ie field mice) insects and worms - yep, they've killed a ton, but who gives a poo?

Well firstly we're not just talking about Perth..
The proportions will be relatively the same but it doesn't really matter if they are different in this case.

There are more snakes then that, and more lizards, frogs can come out when disturbed but cats do know how to look for animals you know right?..
For Australia you should include small marsupials of which Perth has.

You said yourself that if someone cares about an animal then you have no right to kill it..
Regardless, they are native and small insects and worms are way more important then many larger animals.. There are heaps of endangered insects.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:

Quote: Indeed there are.  But they will be different types of lizards, snakes, frogs, small mammals insects and worms, therefore, the proportions killed will not be the same.  I don't expect my cats have killed too many tiger snakes, which will be the only snakes you'll get round here.  Maybe they got a couple of those little geckos, but I think they'd be too fast to be common prey.  Frogs - possibly, but they only come out when its wet - and the cats won't venture out. And as for the small mammals (ie field mice) insects and worms - yep, they've killed a ton, but who gives a poo? Well firstly we're not just talking about Perth.. The proportions will be relatively the same but it doesn't really matter if they are different in this case. There are more snakes then that, and more lizards, frogs can come out when disturbed but cats do know how to look for animals you know right?.. For Australia you should include small marsupials of which Perth has. You said yourself that if someone cares about an animal then you have no right to kill it.. Regardless, they are native and small insects and worms are way more important then many larger animals.. There are heaps of endangered insects.

I am.

I am specifically talking about MY cats that live at MY house.

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 7:17pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:10pm: Quote: Indeed there are.  But they will be different types of lizards, snakes, frogs, small mammals insects and worms, therefore, the proportions killed will not be the same.  I don't expect my cats have killed too many tiger snakes, which will be the only snakes you'll get round here.  Maybe they got a couple of those little geckos, but I think they'd be too fast to be common prey.  Frogs - possibly, but they only come out when its wet - and the cats won't venture out. And as for the small mammals (ie field mice) insects and worms - yep, they've killed a ton, but who gives a poo? Well firstly we're not just talking about Perth.. The proportions will be relatively the same but it doesn't really matter if they are different in this case. There are more snakes then that, and more lizards, frogs can come out when disturbed but cats do know how to look for animals you know right?.. For Australia you should include small marsupials of which Perth has. You said yourself that if someone cares about an animal then you have no right to kill it.. Regardless, they are native and small insects and worms are way more important then many larger animals.. There are heaps of endangered insects. I am. I am specifically talking about MY cats that live at MY house.

Actually your claims are about the whole of Australia, but your way of trying to prove that is by talking about your own cats.
So ok lets assume you are right, in your .000001% of Australia the research is irrelevant, can you prove it for the other 99.999999%

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:17pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:10pm: Quote: Indeed there are.  But they will be different types of lizards, snakes, frogs, small mammals insects and worms, therefore, the proportions killed will not be the same.  I don't expect my cats have killed too many tiger snakes, which will be the only snakes you'll get round here.  Maybe they got a couple of those little geckos, but I think they'd be too fast to be common prey.  Frogs - possibly, but they only come out when its wet - and the cats won't venture out. And as for the small mammals (ie field mice) insects and worms - yep, they've killed a ton, but who gives a poo? Well firstly we're not just talking about Perth.. The proportions will be relatively the same but it doesn't really matter if they are different in this case. There are more snakes then that, and more lizards, frogs can come out when disturbed but cats do know how to look for animals you know right?.. For Australia you should include small marsupials of which Perth has. You said yourself that if someone cares about an animal then you have no right to kill it.. Regardless, they are native and small insects and worms are way more important then many larger animals.. There are heaps of endangered insects. I am. I am specifically talking about MY cats that live at MY house. Actually your claims are about the whole of Australia, but your way of trying to prove that is by talking about your own cats. So ok lets assume you are right, in your .000001% of Australia the research is irrelevant, can you prove it for the other 99.999999%

Are they mate? 

i think you'll find any "claims" I've made refer specifically to MY cats.

Is his your way of backtracking after realising all the "you loose" (sic) bizzo was a bit...premature?

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 7:46pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:35pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:17pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:10pm: Quote: Indeed there are.  But they will be different types of lizards, snakes, frogs, small mammals insects and worms, therefore, the proportions killed will not be the same.  I don't expect my cats have killed too many tiger snakes, which will be the only snakes you'll get round here.  Maybe they got a couple of those little geckos, but I think they'd be too fast to be common prey.  Frogs - possibly, but they only come out when its wet - and the cats won't venture out. And as for the small mammals (ie field mice) insects and worms - yep, they've killed a ton, but who gives a poo? Well firstly we're not just talking about Perth.. The proportions will be relatively the same but it doesn't really matter if they are different in this case. There are more snakes then that, and more lizards, frogs can come out when disturbed but cats do know how to look for animals you know right?.. For Australia you should include small marsupials of which Perth has. You said yourself that if someone cares about an animal then you have no right to kill it.. Regardless, they are native and small insects and worms are way more important then many larger animals.. There are heaps of endangered insects. I am. I am specifically talking about MY cats that live at MY house. Actually your claims are about the whole of Australia, but your way of trying to prove that is by talking about your own cats. So ok lets assume you are right, in your .000001% of Australia the research is irrelevant, can you prove it for the other 99.999999% Are they mate?  i think you'll find any "claims" I've made refer specifically to MY cats. Is his your way of backtracking after realising all the "you loose" (sic) bizzo was a bit...premature?

You said the research was irrelevant for Australia? And you try to prove that by talking about your backyard...

You have backtracked on every single claim you have made so far, strange you would mention the idea.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:46pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:35pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:17pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:10pm: Quote: Indeed there are.  But they will be different types of lizards, snakes, frogs, small mammals insects and worms, therefore, the proportions killed will not be the same.  I don't expect my cats have killed too many tiger snakes, which will be the only snakes you'll get round here.  Maybe they got a couple of those little geckos, but I think they'd be too fast to be common prey.  Frogs - possibly, but they only come out when its wet - and the cats won't venture out. And as for the small mammals (ie field mice) insects and worms - yep, they've killed a ton, but who gives a poo? Well firstly we're not just talking about Perth.. The proportions will be relatively the same but it doesn't really matter if they are different in this case. There are more snakes then that, and more lizards, frogs can come out when disturbed but cats do know how to look for animals you know right?.. For Australia you should include small marsupials of which Perth has. You said yourself that if someone cares about an animal then you have no right to kill it.. Regardless, they are native and small insects and worms are way more important then many larger animals.. There are heaps of endangered insects. I am. I am specifically talking about MY cats that live at MY house. Actually your claims are about the whole of Australia, but your way of trying to prove that is by talking about your own cats. So ok lets assume you are right, in your .000001% of Australia the research is irrelevant, can you prove it for the other 99.999999% Are they mate?  i think you'll find any "claims" I've made refer specifically to MY cats. Is his your way of backtracking after realising all the "you loose" (sic) bizzo was a bit...premature? You said the research was irrelevant for Australia? And you try to prove that by talking about your backyard... You have backtracked on every single claim you have made so far, strange you would mention the idea.

Just curious what "claims" I've supposedly made?
Can you quote me brah?

... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2012 at 7:59pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:57pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:46pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:35pm: ... wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:17pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 15th, 2012 at 7:10pm: Quote: Indeed there are.  But they will be different types of lizards, snakes, frogs, small mammals insects and worms, therefore, the proportions killed will not be the same.  I don't expect my cats have killed too many tiger snakes, which will be the only snakes you'll get round here.  Maybe they got a couple of those little geckos, but I think they'd be too fast to be common prey.  Frogs - possibly, but they only come out when its wet - and the cats won't venture out. And as for the small mammals (ie field mice) insects and worms - yep, they've killed a ton, but who gives a poo? Well firstly we're not just talking about Perth.. The proportions will be relatively the same but it doesn't really matter if they are different in this case. There are more snakes then that, and more lizards, frogs can come out when disturbed but cats do know how to look for animals you know right?.. For Australia you should include small marsupials of which Perth has. You said yourself that if someone cares about an animal then you have no right to kill it.. Regardless, they are native and small insects and worms are way more important then many larger animals.. There are heaps of endangered insects. I am. I am specifically talking about MY cats that live at MY house. Actually your claims are about the whole of Australia, but your way of trying to prove that is by talking about your own cats. So ok lets assume you are right, in your .000001% of Australia the research is irrelevant, can you prove it for the other 99.999999% Are they mate?  i think you'll find any "claims" I've made refer specifically to MY cats. Is his your way of backtracking after realising all the "you loose" (sic) bizzo was a bit...premature? You said the research was irrelevant for Australia? And you try to prove that by talking about your backyard... You have backtracked on every single claim you have made so far, strange you would mention the idea. Just curious what "claims" I've supposedly made? Can you quote me brah?

Haha I can understand your forgetfulness considering you have made so many now, changing whenever I destroy them.

No, really.

Quote me brah.

This Topic was moved here from Environment by freediver.