Gemma I will always question these studies. I think people should. Generally I am inclined to agree with you about things. But I wound not say that they are absolute proof because it's not (in my opinion). Let's not talk anymore about it. I promise I will try my very best not to annoy you in future. It's not a promise, but I will honestly try.
What more proof do you need than miniature cameras attached to the cats that film them while they kill and molest wildlife? That is what they did, attached cameras to the cats, collected all the footage, studied it and wrote the paper. The 'estimate' part is simply a case of extrapolating the data so that sample represents the entire United States.
It is proof. The only people who would not accept it as proof are those that don't want to believe it.
By the way I always question these studies too, I even get paid to do so occasionally. This paper is very robust, both in baseline data and methodology. I have seen no challenge to it. There are already moves based on this paper to get an outright ban on cats in the US through congress. The wheels are turning as they say.
From my point of view as long as there is a level of estimation there is room for doubt. I'm not saying that I don't necessarily believe the trend. I do know it is ludicrous to expect us to watch every cat. I felt you were presenting this evidence as absolute proof. It cannot be absolute. I'm glad you raised the point about the rspa. I did read there website and looked at the study they were talking about. I am glad you are on the case.
I do resent being told what to believe. Which I'm sure you did not intend but it felt like that to me. I realise you are passionate and I'm sure that passion aids you in your work. I wish you ever success with it.
I'm sorry that posting a link to a paper that you asked me to, then helping you to understand that you were misinterpreting the use of two particular words in the extract made you feel like I was telling you what to think. You do realise that quantitative means there were no estimates made during the collection of the data? Making your last comment you posted rather hard to follow.
In the original thread. I had an opinion. You appeared to disregarded it. Twice you accused me say something I didn't. You wouldn't agree to disagree. You had to try and hammer home the point. I'm happy to be educated. Not dictated to. You told me facts are facts because of the research. You did not back this up by showing the research at that time. Which is all I was saying on that thread.
The rspb say there is no evidence, I have a problem with that. There is some evidence to suggest something but not undeniable proof. You told me the research is a fact. Something like "facts are facts" It's not a fact. But there is evidence to support your case. Is all you can. When you then apply your results to the whole of Britain there is room for doubt. The whole of Britain was not studied. We will not agree. I'm leaving it there. Apologies for any offence to you I have caused.
Lunaria - I've been on forums for a very very long time.
It appears your 'tactic' is that you hope most people will only read the last post - some people do that and form an opinion, let them do that and think what they like.
Using words like 'offence', 'annoy' are simply you giving away that you would have liked to have made me feel that way.
I am not annoyed, not offended, simply not even bothered.
I went to great lengths to assist you with understanding a paper you demanded I post a link to. I had already posted a link to a news article that covered the same ground and was far more digestible. (in my humble opinion)
As it is was, you clearly did not get past reading the extract of the paper without the need to debate the content. Using two words you picked up from it, you attempted to form an argument around them. Unfortunately you had not understood the context they were used in.
Posts
Gemma I will always question these studies. I think people should. Generally I am inclined to agree with you about things. But I wound not say that they are absolute proof because it's not (in my opinion). Let's not talk anymore about it. I promise I will try my very best not to annoy you in future. It's not a promise, but I will honestly try.
You don't annoy me. Nobody annoys me.
What more proof do you need than miniature cameras attached to the cats that film them while they kill and molest wildlife? That is what they did, attached cameras to the cats, collected all the footage, studied it and wrote the paper. The 'estimate' part is simply a case of extrapolating the data so that sample represents the entire United States.
It is proof. The only people who would not accept it as proof are those that don't want to believe it.
By the way I always question these studies too, I even get paid to do so occasionally. This paper is very robust, both in baseline data and methodology. I have seen no challenge to it. There are already moves based on this paper to get an outright ban on cats in the US through congress. The wheels are turning as they say.
From my point of view as long as there is a level of estimation there is room for doubt. I'm not saying that I don't necessarily believe the trend. I do know it is ludicrous to expect us to watch every cat. I felt you were presenting this evidence as absolute proof. It cannot be absolute. I'm glad you raised the point about the rspa. I did read there website and looked at the study they were talking about. I am glad you are on the case.
I do resent being told what to believe. Which I'm sure you did not intend but it felt like that to me. I realise you are passionate and I'm sure that passion aids you in your work. I wish you ever success with it.
That's the last I will say about it.
I'm sorry that posting a link to a paper that you asked me to, then helping you to understand that you were misinterpreting the use of two particular words in the extract made you feel like I was telling you what to think. You do realise that quantitative means there were no estimates made during the collection of the data? Making your last comment you posted rather hard to follow.
In the original thread. I had an opinion. You appeared to disregarded it. Twice you accused me say something I didn't. You wouldn't agree to disagree. You had to try and hammer home the point. I'm happy to be educated. Not dictated to. You told me facts are facts because of the research. You did not back this up by showing the research at that time. Which is all I was saying on that thread.
The rspb say there is no evidence, I have a problem with that. There is some evidence to suggest something but not undeniable proof. You told me the research is a fact. Something like "facts are facts" It's not a fact. But there is evidence to support your case. Is all you can. When you then apply your results to the whole of Britain there is room for doubt. The whole of Britain was not studied. We will not agree. I'm leaving it there. Apologies for any offence to you I have caused.
Lunaria - I've been on forums for a very very long time.
It appears your 'tactic' is that you hope most people will only read the last post - some people do that and form an opinion, let them do that and think what they like.
Using words like 'offence', 'annoy' are simply you giving away that you would have liked to have made me feel that way.
I am not annoyed, not offended, simply not even bothered.
I went to great lengths to assist you with understanding a paper you demanded I post a link to. I had already posted a link to a news article that covered the same ground and was far more digestible. (in my humble opinion)
As it is was, you clearly did not get past reading the extract of the paper without the need to debate the content. Using two words you picked up from it, you attempted to form an argument around them. Unfortunately you had not understood the context they were used in.
I'm finding the whole thing just silly now.
My dad used to say 'None so blind as those that will not see'
I say 'Never argue with a delusion'
In the sticks near Peterborough
Hello Philippa
All growing well?
In the sticks near Peterborough
You have got it wrong there Nut, in the words of the great Delboy Trotter
' theres none so blind as them wot wont listen'
Lyn
I remember that one. You have a PM.