XPost: alt.cats 
 From: mmontcha@OregonVOS.net 
  
 On 22 Sep 2003, Sherry wrote: 
 |>|George Harrison would have been knived whether he had cats or not. 
 |> 
 |>Does that statement betray a belief in fatalism? 
 | 
 |No, not at all. It portrays a belief that cats are independent creatures 
 and 
 |are not bodyguards. 
 | 
 |> 
 |>|Sherry 
 |>| 
 |>|Panthers, for instance.  Alas, 
 |>|>cancer took him out of the picture.  :(  Large cats make better, 
 |>|>faster bodyguards, all other things being equal 
 |>| 
 |>|Cats don't make good bodyguards at all. 
 |> 
 |>Well, they've got to be hungry, and they should weigh at least as 
 |>much as the human they are intended to be used on. 
 | 
 |You're getting so far off base from the original topic you're out 
 |of the ballpark now. If you add enough qualifiers, as you're attempting 
 |to do, just about any species can be considered a "bodyguard." 
  
 He had a dog in his yard, didn't he?  But they are noisy, and can hardly 
 be considered capable of doing a job requiring a stealthy approach. 
 Cats, otoh, can be expected to do that kind of job quite well. 
  
 |Cats are not natural bodyguards. 
  
 Big cats can be. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)