Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Would you change one word in your vocabulary?

dogmelissa
August 18th, 2006, 02:14 PM
For those of you who don't live in Windsor Ontario, or any of the other Guardian Cities (Windsor being the only one in Canada so far)...

Would you consider changing one word in your vocabulary and potentially changing the lives of countless animals?

I have embraced this change, and am working to do my part to change my city into a Guardian City. I would love to hear from others on the Guardian Campaign (support, advice, etc).

You can read more about it here: http://guardiancampaign.com/index.htm
For an easier to find description of the campaign, see http://www.petplanet.ca/guardian.html

I would also like to hear from people who do *not* want to see this change, and your reasons why.

Please try to keep all posts civil and try to have an open mind.

Melissa

Maya
August 19th, 2006, 01:23 PM
I think it's a great idea to change from OWNER to GUARDIAN. We don't call ourselves child owner's. Children are still almost property when it comes to child protection laws but the fact we don't call them property is a step forward that should apply to animals as well.

les
August 19th, 2006, 01:53 PM
I think it's a good idea also but I don't think it would make a big difference.

I mean, I adopted my lab from a "breeder" before I had found this site and I don't think he was a "great" one, however, my dog is great :) But I have always said "adopted" because it's just how I think about it. My friend on the other hand says "bought" - she "bought" her dogs from a breeder. To me, "bought" is like a pair of shoes or a tv or something .. not something that's alive.

I don't really think of myself as "owner" either .. I mean, I do obviously "own" them but I think of them like my babies - - which none dog people do not understand! It's so funny that someone can say to them "where's your momma?" and they're come right to me. ;)

So I would support the change to guardian because even if it could change they way a few people think and possibly help some animals, it'd be worth it =)

Prin
August 19th, 2006, 04:33 PM
But if the law sees them as possessions, then we are owners.

dogmelissa
August 19th, 2006, 04:58 PM
But if the law sees them as possessions, then we are owners.

Yes, Prin, and as such, a person can do whatever they want to their "property", including all kinds of abuse, neglect, torture, abandonment, etc etc etc.

One small step at a time; first local laws, bylaws and community standards, then provincial, then federal. It *is* working, and it *will* make a difference.

It's an uphill fight, and it can't be done in one huge leap.

Melissa

Maya
August 20th, 2006, 03:54 PM
As long as animals continue to be bought and sold I think the idea of ownership over them will continue. When people were purchased and sold as property they were slaves, I don't think it is much different when it comes to animals. Every time we say pet owner we are objectifying animals even if we don't ourselves feel that way about them :cat:

Maya
August 27th, 2006, 02:50 PM
I'm curious why there wasn't very much response to this topic? I noticed on marko's Podcast#2 that he uses Guardian instead of owner and it sounds really good.

Golden Girls
August 27th, 2006, 02:59 PM
I think it sounds much better being a guardian rather than owner ... I've always had trouble using the word owner. Maya I think that's a really good example when people were bought and sold as property they were slaves :sad:

I'm a proud guardian of Misti and Brandi << sounds pretty nice! :thumbs up

rainbow
August 27th, 2006, 03:05 PM
I've never called myself my dog's owner. I've always said I'm his mom. In fact, one time I was filling out a form for something and it listed "dog's owner" and I crossed out "owner" and replaced it with "mom". ;)

LM1313
August 27th, 2006, 04:04 PM
I think using "guardian" will make non-doggy people take you less seriously. Hardcore doggy lovers will nod and agree with you, but they aren't the ones who need educating. It's the people who would edge away from you if you said "I'm a dog guardian" who need the education on spaying, neutering, proper training, socialization, etc. So, I think in the long run it would be detrimental.

I don't have a problem with the word "owner" anyway. Words evolve over time, their connotations change.

dogmelissa
August 28th, 2006, 02:13 PM
I'm curious why there wasn't very much response to this topic? I noticed on marko's Podcast#2 that he uses Guardian instead of owner and it sounds really good.

I think the biggest problem with this, and why it's always such a fight to change anything that has to do with animals is because animals can't speak a language that humans understand. They can't open their mouths and say "that hurts!" Even if they did, when 5 seconds later, they're crawling in your lap giving you kisses, the simple human mentality is that they've forgotten or that it really didn't hurt that much if they just come right back to you.

Simply put, as long as the people who care for animals call themselves owners, there will continue to be a general belief that animals are property. As long as there were people calling others "slaves", it was considered ok, wasn't it? It took ONE person to stand up and make a stand on slavery. The same can be done with animal ownership. Until it is taught in schools that animals are our companions, associates, coworkers, furbabies, and friends, and not our "pets" (how is this word different than "slave"?), and that those of us who share our lives with them are their guardians and not their owners (which simply means that we are responsible for ensuring their care, not that we can do what we want to them), then there will always be animal abuse, neglect, cruelty, etc etc etc. Most legislation has already changed the terminology from "pet" to "companion animal", partially to distinguish "service animals" from those merely sharing our lives to provide companionship, and not because we are being assisted by them. So the only thing left to change is one other word; companion animal owner to companion animal guardian.

If you adopted a child from an orphanage, would you call yourself that child's "owner", even if you paid for the child? I think not. Children are bought all the time--especially in today's era of fertility treatment. Paying for an embryo to be planted in your womb is really no different (IMO) than purchasing a child. So why we insist on saying we are "adopting" an animal from a shelter (or a breeder, or a petstore), and then saying that we are that animal's "owner", I have no idea.

Regardless, I am working on making my city a Guardian City. If any of you would like to do the same, I'm sure we would be able to find a strong support system here, or on other forums (I'd even be willing to start a new one, I found a place where you can do so).

Why does this make a difference? What is the point of changing ONE word?
From the Guardian Campaign website:

What A Difference A Word Makes!
Animal Guardians:

1. Recognize Animals as Individuals, Not Objects:
In choosing a more accurate term to define your relationship with animals, you are helping to elevate a community’s consciousness and way of thinking about non-human animals. By viewing, treating, and speaking of animals from the perspective of a guardian, you are respecting and recognizing that they are individuals with needs and interests of their own.

2. Recognize Changing Public Attitudes Toward Animals
Our changing attitudes toward animals are reflected in the language that we use to write and speak about them. Surveys show that the vast majority of people with animals in their care think of them as family members. "Animal guardian" or "animal caretaker" are respectful terms that are consistent with public sentiment. As we use kinder terms, our children will absorb the message that cats, dogs and other animals are living beings who depend on people for long-term care and protection.

3. Help Reduce the Number of Animals Bred in Puppy Mills:
Did you know that most pet store animals come from puppy mills? Also, every dog or cat purchased from a pet store equals one euthanized animal at a shelter or humane society. Buying an animal from a store instead of adopting from a shelter contributes to animal overpopulation by taking a potential home from a homeless animal. Buying an animal also funds puppy mills and contributes to the problem of treating and viewing animals as marketable commodities. By saying we "own" animals, we encourage others to view them monetarily, while calling ourselves "guardians" communicates the emotional value of animals.

4. Help Decrease Abuse and Abandonment:
If you teach young people that their role as a guardian of animals is a valued personal characteristic, they might be less likely to abuse or abandon their animal companions. When adoption agencies, shelters and rescue organizations join you in reinforcing responsible animal guardianship, people will be far less likely to view and treat their newly adopted family members as mere things or commodities. What’s more, shelters, humane societies and rescue organizations that choose to use the term "animal guardian" in their adoption contracts and literature, communicate to adopters that they are adding a new member into their families, not purchasing a disposable piece of property.

5. Positively Impact Local Communities:
It is a community-based effort to legally recognize citizens as animal guardians. Local governments that refer to residents as guardians affirm the positive impact that citizens can have on local animal issues such as shelter overpopulation, barking dogs, dog fighting, and animal abuse. Calling residents "animal guardians" empowers communities to work together toward common solutions. Updating city codes to include the term "animal guardian" is a symbolic change that demonstrates a new attitude of public concern for the welfare of all animals. Though updated legal language does not affect one’s legal rights, responsibilities and liabilities, the psychological and sociological impact of this change in language is advancing positive attitudes about animal care.

Community leaders share their thoughts on language:

Michael Shrewsbury, Director, Sherwood Animal Services:
"Why did we change our ordinance? Because it is important to us that people understand the depth of the bond occurs between their animals and themselves. To us - it is also imperative that people understand the responsibility of being guardians. And to we say to those who are considering an ordinance or policy change to put into effect the word Guardian; These times are reflective of the history of ever-changing moral standards. Perilous conditions have time and time again forced a change in the way the entire world thinks. I am proud to have been leader in this positive movement."

Jan McHugh, Director, Boulder Valley Humane Society:
"Our investigations for cruelty and neglect have increased, I can only speculate that this means we are having more cases reported hopefully because of awareness - same number are prosecuted. I see everyone using the word, newspaper articles, etc. So for me if it stimulates conversation about what role animals play in our lives, it is working toward improving the human/animal bond.”

Dona Spring, Berkeley City Council Member:
“While there are no official stats, the deliberation and news articles were a great local education tool. Animal attitudes are changing. A task force was convened for municipal animal issues, and a bond recently passed unanimously to build shelter adoption center. Media relations in regards to animal issues have improved (there is more coverage of these issues), possibly due to this increased awareness."

Linda Jones, Rhode Island schoolteacher:
"The proposal that my students presented to the Rhode Island legislature was about making society more aware of the importance of animal companions in society and the respect that all animals deserve. They cited the link between abuse of animals and domestic abuse. This is a small step to preventing violence against animals, as well as preventing people from taking on the responsiblity of animal guardianship when they are not able to.

Kimberley Fross, Lawyer, Albany New York:
"I think the language change is a more accurate reflection of how Albany residents care for their animal companions. When local legislators vote for an amendment such as this, it marks an important development for domestic animals most in need. I believe it also marks an important step toward the much needed greater compassion for all animals."

The excerpts below were extracted from Animal Sheltering Magazine's Article, "What's in A Word (And Does it Matter)?"

"The whole profession . . . is evolving,"says Mary Metzner, past president of the National Animal Control Association. "We're moving along, slowly but surely, [toward] the kinder, gentler way." Mary said years ago that the move away from the possessive-sounding term, 'pet owner' "is just another sign of the times." Metzner likened the shift from animal owner to animal guardian to the coining of the phrase "animal care and control" to replace "dogcatcher."

Geoff Handy, the Director of Communications and Campaigns for the Companion Animals section of The HSUS, says "One of the most obvious changes is the evolution at The HSUS of animals as 'it' to animals as 'he' or 'she,' The change was meant to reflect a shift similar to the (guardian) one in Boulder: An "it" is an owned thing with no interests except those of its owner, whereas a "he"or "she" has feelings, rights, and needs. "The very discussion of language helps a field grow,"says Handy. "If you compare 'owner' to 'guardian' and examine the context of each term, then what are you saying? Why are you considering that shift? The dialogue gets people thinking."

Jan Elster, an organizational development consultant, says the difference between "unwanted"and "homeless"is a subtle one, but one worth considering. "I prefer the term 'homeless,' "Elster says. "So many of the animals are unwanted, but some are brought in by caring people who love them, but for some reason cannot take care of them. We can only assume they are 'unwanted'; we know for sure they are 'homeless.' "Just as importantly, the misnomer "unwanted" belies the fact that even though one person did not want the animal, hundreds more may find the same creature to be an ideal companion.

Christie Smith, executive director Potter League for Animals, Newport, Rhode Island says "I think we sell ourselves short sometimes in our word choices because some terms don't reflect how far this industry has come, or how bright and dedicated so many of the people are." Smith continues, "If we speak justly, it is easier to act justly, to build just and humane communities, and to encourage others to do the same. Our community is based on shared compassion; it requires a language of compassion to communicate its intent."

Who's with me?
Melissa

dogmelissa
August 28th, 2006, 02:34 PM
I think using "guardian" will make non-doggy people take you less seriously. Hardcore doggy lovers will nod and agree with you, but they aren't the ones who need educating. It's the people who would edge away from you if you said "I'm a dog guardian" who need the education on spaying, neutering, proper training, socialization, etc. So, I think in the long run it would be detrimental.

I don't have a problem with the word "owner" anyway. Words evolve over time, their connotations change.

I'm frankly appalled. It's attitudes like this, that it's "ok" to think of animals as property, that are the biggest problem. Not to say that you are abusive, but what are you teaching your children, your neighbours, your neighbour's kids? That it's ok to use a word, which has always meant the same thing and always *will* mean the same thing, that is degrading to animals. Own your house, own your car, own your purse, your shoes, your stapler. How are you suggesting that the word means something different when you say that you own your dog?

If the non-pet owners are the ones needing education, then why aren't you educating them? Why aren't you making simple changes in your life (like calling yourself a guardian), in order to help them understand how animals need and deserve to be treated?

PS: Guardianship goes beyond dogs, goes beyond cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, fish, snakes and lizards. It goes to every animal on earth, including elephants, tigers, and crocodiles.

Melissa

Jackie467
August 28th, 2006, 05:00 PM
I'm frankly appalled. It's attitudes like this, that it's "ok" to think of animals as property, that are the biggest problem. Not to say that you are abusive, but what are you teaching your children, your neighbours, your neighbour's kids? That it's ok to use a word, which has always meant the same thing and always *will* mean the same thing, that is degrading to animals. Own your house, own your car, own your purse, your shoes, your stapler. How are you suggesting that the word means something different when you say that you own your dog?

If the non-pet owners are the ones needing education, then why aren't you educating them? Why aren't you making simple changes in your life (like calling yourself a guardian), in order to help them understand how animals need and deserve to be treated?

PS: Guardianship goes beyond dogs, goes beyond cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, fish, snakes and lizards. It goes to every animal on earth, including elephants, tigers, and crocodiles.

Melissa

Perhaps I'm a bit dull but I don't see how this is appalling? I mean quite frankly the name change isn't going to do anything. I doubt the people that need to be educated about how animals are not posessions would even take notice of the change. And words do change meaning over time. In fact there was a discusion a long time about just that. the discussion what about how people call their dogs buggers but if you look up the real meaning of that word it is actually very disgusting, yet that is not how it is thought of any longer.

dogmelissa
August 28th, 2006, 05:36 PM
Perhaps I'm a bit dull but I don't see how this is appalling? I mean quite frankly the name change isn't going to do anything. I doubt the people that need to be educated about how animals are not posessions would even take notice of the change. And words do change meaning over time. In fact there was a discusion a long time about just that. the discussion what about how people call their dogs buggers but if you look up the real meaning of that word it is actually very disgusting, yet that is not how it is thought of any longer.

Perhaps I'm living in the wrong era. I should have been fighting for the rights of slaves, not animals. Hang on.... check that. I *am* fighting for the rights of slaves; except they wear fur coats and have a tendency to drool or claw the curtains.


Please explain how the word "own" has changed.
I own my stapler; I bought it from a store and it is mine to do with as I please. I can smash it, throw it against the wall, smack the top of it to put a staple through a thick stack of paper, or gently press on it to staple only a couple.
I own my shoes. In fact, I own quite a few pairs of them. I wear them in mud puddles, in snow, in burning hot sun, and throw them in the closet when I'm done with them. I literally kick them off and I ignore them for months at a time.
Oh look, here is a dog that I own. Because I own it, it's ok that I forgot to give it food today. I need to go away on business, but it's ok, I can just leave my dog at home, alone. I stubbed my toe and don't want to go for a walk, so I'm not going to walk my dog today. I also expect my dog to bring me my slippers when I get home from work, and if he doesn't, I'm going to yell at him. He peed on the floor, and I think this is bad, so I'm going to hit him and throw him out the door. He chewed up my leather shoes, and I paid good money for them, so I'm going to kick him in the ribs and chase him with a baseball bat. I also expect him to cooperate when I drag him down the road, put him in the back of my open-bed pickup truck (which he *better* not jump out of!!), and after we drive down a gravel road, he'd better jump out, not chase the chickens or I'll put a chain around his neck and pull until he stops breathing.

What you're saying is that somehow I'm supposed to magically make a distinguishment between "own" as in "I own 3 pens" and "own" as in "I own a dog"?? Yes, the meaning of some words change, but the word "own" has not changed.
Here are some definitions for the word "own"

Definitions of own on the Web:

* have ownership or possession of; "He owns three houses in Florida"; "How many cars does she have?"
* own(a): belonging to or on behalf of a specified person (especially yourself); preceded by a possessive; "for your own use"; "do your own thing"; "she makes her own clothes"; "`ain' is Scottish"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Ownership is the socially supported power to exclusively control and use for one's own purposes, that which is owned. Definitions of it are closely tied to definitions of wealth, private or public.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Own

* To dominate someone in a game. (eg "I 0wn j00")

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anywhere here where it says that "ownership" of a living being is somehow defined differently than owning a car or a house. Please also note the text in bold. Especially the "socially supported" part of that.

And if you don't understand why that thought appalls me, then perhaps you don't have enough respect for animals. And if that statement causes you to be insulted, then chances are it's because it hit a little too close to the truth.

I'm not trying to be rude or hurtful, but the way that people in general treat animals really bothers me. Too many animals are seen as "just a dog", "just a cat", "just an animal" as if they don't have feelings, as if they don't get lonely or scared or feel pain, or have emotional and physical wants and needs. They are not objects to be owned or possessed. Take away the "socially acceptable" part of having the freedom to abuse your pets, and you have guardianship, where it *isn't* socially acceptable to harm or neglect animals.

Maybe I'm a bit biased because my dog was abused, and I see everyday how that affects him. Maybe I'm biased because I worked at the Humane Society and helped to euthanize up to 30 cats a day simply because no one wanted them. Maybe I'm biased because I've watched people treat their dogs the way I treat my shoes. Maybe I'm biased because when I come home from work everyday, I'm greeted by 12 legs of pure love; 4 of which would have died without me, 8 of which refused to let me die, and all of which take the love I give to them and give it back 10 fold every single moment of their lives. Maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it. Why in the world would anyone want to respect an *animal*? Gosh, it's not like they ever did anything.... except love us unconditionally.

papillonmama
August 28th, 2006, 05:51 PM
I don't want to make you mad, but just to make a point, there are a lot of people who are guardians of children, elderly and physically and mentally handicapped people who abuse their charges.

:sorry: not trying to upset you, just saying....

LavenderRott
August 28th, 2006, 06:07 PM
Yep, ummmm NOPE!

I own my dog. (I guess today is my day to be a thorn in everyone's side!)

I am the Guardian of my children. The government tells me how to discipline my child, the insurance company tells me how to treat my child medically, teachers tell me what to teach my child and the government can come into my home and take my child if I don't follow their rules.

Guardianship was originally put out there by the PETA people and they think that any type of "animal slavery" should be illegal. Somehow, this Guardianship thing is going to come back and bite people in the butt.

Jackie467
August 28th, 2006, 09:05 PM
Please explain how the word "own" has changed.

I say I own my husband and he says he owns me. Maybe it's an area thing but I hear it a lot in that regard and it doesn't mean that you get to do anything you want to them. It means to me when applied to a living thing that you are there for them just as they are there for you. Maybe I'm in a bad mood today but you are being a bit too radical. Even if the word is changed just as lavenderott said it doesn't mean that it will stop the abuse. the word used makes no difference in how things are done the only thing that will change it is education and prevention. Who cares what they call ownership or gaurdianship, what matters is if the animal is treated right. A vocabulary change will do nothing at all for that. And definitions of words are qualified by what you are talking about when using them and also regional variations.

Maya
August 29th, 2006, 03:07 PM
And definitions of words are qualified by what you are talking about when using them and also regional variations.

I think we all agree that we are trying to protect animals because they can't protect themselves? Language does have a subtle yet powerful influence on the way we think and act, at the very least saying what we mean when referring to animals will have a positive influence in the big picture. Why risk being misunderstood by using a word that refers to possessions or inanimate objects? :dog:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=owner&x=0&y=0

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=guardian&x=35&y=10

phoenix
August 29th, 2006, 03:54 PM
Melissa, you need to get off the cross. You aren't the only one who cares about animals here. If you post up something and not everyone agrees with you, it's not right to fly off at them.

Here's an interesting quote from your 'guardianship' piece:

Jan McHugh, Director, Boulder Valley Humane Society:
"Our investigations for cruelty and neglect have increased, I can only speculate that this means we are having more cases reported hopefully because of awareness - same number are prosecuted. I see everyone using the word, newspaper articles, etc. So for me if it stimulates conversation about what role animals play in our lives, it is working toward improving the human/animal bond.”

I wonder what s/he would have said if investigations had decreased... hmm I bet it would be along the lines of, "because we've changed the word owner to guardian, people are abusing their animals less and we've less need to investigate.." People's interpretations aren't causal; maybe the word change has led to a positive attitude adjustment and maybe it has not.


You have come on very strong against LM but I think you've misunderstood:

I think using "guardian" will make non-doggy people take you less seriously. Hardcore doggy lovers will nod and agree with you, but they aren't the ones who need educating. It's the people who would edge away from you if you said "I'm a dog guardian" who need the education on spaying, neutering, proper training, socialization, etc. So, I think in the long run it would be detrimental.

She's saying (I think) that while people who already believe this won't have a problem, people with OTHER perspectives aren't likely to condone your use of the word in this context... they will likely dismiss you as a radical.This would serve to polarize the two groups instead of bringing them together.

I don't have a problem with the word "owner" anyway. Words evolve over time, their connotations change.

She didn't say the word HAS changed. But the word COULD change. If we used the word owner in a way that corresponded to the values of sustainability and stewardship, well, that would certainly change its meaning. When we own land, we might trash it. I don't think that's good ownership either.

Many people see themselves as stewards of the land, and guardians of animals. (me included). I don't *think that I use the word "owner" too often, I don't think of our relationship that way, certainly. BUT, let's allow people their opinions! The label 'owner' doesn't make the person bad in any way; it's the actions they do under that label that present problems. AND... let's face it, I don't think any other label will really change that.

LM1313
August 29th, 2006, 04:08 PM
I'm teaching people by EXAMPLE. Deeds speak louder than words--though I'm perfectly willing to use words to help animals. But the words will be things like, "Don't buy from a pet shop", not "don't call yourself an owner."

Language that promotes respect towards a group of people is fine, as long as it doesn't go overboard (for example, "vertically challenged" instead of "short.") But language can also be divisive. It can be a way of saying, "You don't know what that acronym means? Ho ho, I can see you don't belong to OUR little club!" That's the danger I see with "pet guardian." What good is a word for promoting animal welfare if it builds a wall between you and person you need to educate?

As an example of how connotation changes over time . . . the word "cretin" evolved from "Christian." People with low IQs in one part of the French Alps were at one time called Christians to emphasize to the community that they were still humans and brothers/sisters in faith, not beasts. The word changed, the attitude didn't.

Edit: Thanks, phoenix, that is what I meant. :) If people want to use "guardian", that's fine. I do understand the logic behind it. I agree that animals shouldn't be regarded as disposable playthings. I just don't feel it's a pragmatic step in reducing abuse or changing attitudes. You're going to get a lot of eyerolls (physical and mental) if you use it and a lot of people will just dismiss what you say out of hand because, "Oh, she's one of those animal freaks!", especially if it's associated with PETA, which has a horrible reputation even among animal lovers. Better to come at people on their own terms, if you see what I mean. :)

And, personally, I think language should be allowed to evolve on its own. It's been battered about horribly in the past few decades. "Let go" instead of "fired"? C'mon . . .

Maya
August 29th, 2006, 05:10 PM
I don't think anyone who agrees with the change is suggesting that animal lovers announce that they are animal "guardians". It's mainly something being adopted in paper work and on signs at parks to promote respect. Why is that radical or divisive?

LM1313
August 29th, 2006, 05:53 PM
In that case I definitely don't think the change should be made (in paperwork) because legally dogs DO have owners. You can adopt a dog from an animal shelter, then sell it. Or give it away. You can't do that with, for example, a child you adopt. ("Yeah, I sold little Jimmy to Bob at the general store because Bob needed a kid to sweep the floors and I needed cigarettes." (Of course, at one time it WAS legal to get orphans off the "orphan trains" if you needed someone to work on your farm. Times do indeed change!))

If you think people shouldn't be allowed to do these things and should be required to treat dogs in much the same way that adopted kids are treated, then you should lobby to have the laws changed . . . wait until the laws are changed . . . THEN change the word to "guardian", because at that point, the term will be meaningful. Until then, it's a pretty way to say "owner." It's also incorrect; an owner is not the same thing as an adoptive guardian, legally. I can accept an individual using "guardian" because there the term can signify how he sees his relationship with his animals, but on signs or in paperwork . . . no. Call a spade a spade, even if a diamond or a heart would be preferable.

White Wolf
August 29th, 2006, 10:13 PM
We will not tolerate blatant rudeness and name calling on this board. As that is what this thread has become, it is closed.