User talk:GingerGin

hi gin

Regarding edits made during February 15 2007

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My cats

Thank you for asking, they're well, but how on earth did you learn I had cats?--Ramdrake 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I raise cats, and I have exactly one calico, so either you have good psychic (excellent, should I say!) abilities, or you happen to know me from somewhere (perhaphs through a cat breeder friend of mine who happens to have contacts all over North America and Europe). To answer your question, I don't really believe in a hierarchy of animals, at least as far as rights are concerned. As far as I'm concerned, my cats are my companion, but I own them too (so nobody can take them away from me without my consent). Butchery animals I believe, are a bit different: as I'm not a vegetarian, I will eat meat, though I prefer that whatever meat I eat was treated decently enough when it was a living animal. However, one must realize that, if it weren't for the food industry, 90% of all farm animals wouldn't even have been born to start with, so saying "there are 30 miliion ducks and geeses tortured every year to produce foie gras" rings a bit false (if we hadn't come up with foie gras, how many of these would we be raising a year?). Also, if you are careful not to let yourself get swayed by the propaganda of anti-foie gras movements, whatever research does exist on the effect of gavage on ducks and geese isn't convincing, one way or the other. Who says duck don't like being fat? We can't tell, but we do know of people who like smoking like crazy, even though it will eventually kill them, most probably. So, pretending to be able to tell whether a duck or goose going through gavage feels like it is tortured or just part of life is a big guess, IMHO. Free-range fattening of geese and ducks would be of course, much more ethical, no concern there. But condemning foie gras, the entire industry and its methods because we "think" we wouldn't like to be treated this way as ducks or geese is a bit much. Sure, the controversy has every right to be on the page, but trying to sully the reputation of a group like INRA which thinks the deleterious effects of ducks and geese are in the end manageable, or putting into the article a scene from a half-fictitious movie showing the birds being tortured (the nails), or comparing stuff which cannot really be compared (a pound of corn mush for a duck vs 44 pounds of pasta for a human) is trying to sway the reader emotionally. Foie gras has a long tradition, although it has recently come under attack after the production methods were industrialized. If you were to look into most industrial meat production, you'd find similarly unpalatable processes. I'm not saying nothing should be done about that; I'm saying it's wrong to condemn a specific foodstuff because of its production methods. The correct way, I think is to research alternate, less controversial production methods (such as is done in Spain); the whole planet will not go vegetarian anytime soon, barring any major catastrophe. And no matter how wrong or not we think foie gras production is, our job at wikipedia is to describe it neutrally; feelings should be left at the door. Hope that helps you define my position.--Ramdrake 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first name wouldn't happen to be "Rona" or "Rhona", by any chance??? Just a guess here.--Ramdrake 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

* I definitely wouldn't give this guy your name if I were you. Just a suggestion! 70.109.119.191 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Of foie gras, ethics and... cats

Well, I must say you're right on a good number of things: the fact that many (if not most) animal preparations involve some suffering from the animal (at the very least, they get killed in the end) does not defend foie gras. In fact, if the human race were to be totally ethical, we would all be vegetarians, we would all be ecologically conscious and conscientious, and some effort would be directed towards reducing human population a bit (or at least curb overpopulation). However, economics and some people's way of life have this tendency to get in the way of ethics (not that I'm defending economics or anything, I'm just trying to be a realist). I don't have a problem with people who object to foie gras for ethical reasons, as long as they realize that those same ethics should make them object to a lot of other things as well. What I find a bit more objectionable are those who, if you'll allow me the mental image, will think nothing of debating banning foie gras while eating a 32-ounce prime beef steak. Yes, foie gras production may make the animals suffer more than average animals destined to human food consumption. How much more? I don't think we can pretend to know. It's possible the gavage procedure may make some birds suffer but some others might not and still other birds might even enjoy it. I'm not pretending that's the case - just saying we don't and we can't really know for sure, one way or another. So, to me, singling out foie gras out of the whole food industry sounds a bit hypocritical, if you follow my meaning. If we pretend to be ethical, we should be honest about it, and question all our meat-eating habits first, not just foie gras. (Besides, I don't even like foie gras).

Sorry about the question, I certainly didn't mean to invade your privacy. It was absolutely no more than an idle question and I certainly didn't expect you to answer. It just so happened that you mentioned some details about my cats within days of my meeting a person who came here to get her cat bred to one of mine, and she got to meet many of my cats by the same token. And the fact is, I happen to have one and only one calico cat (even though they're not especially rare). The coincidence was a bit striking, that's all. Have a nice day!--Ramdrake 13:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To e-mail me, just follow this link: [1]. Although I haven't seen it, painted cats doesn't sound half as sick as that other internet joke that circulated a couple of years ago:Bonsai Kitten. Even though the makers of the site openly said it was a joke, it was repulsive enough that a rather large number of people complained about it, causing the site to close down repeatedly (it redefined "cruel behavior towards animals"). About your preceding e-mail, I see your point, and I think we agree on many issues. And no, I don't think it's all black or white, you're right, but I still think if one's criticism towards foie gras is to be fully credible, it needs to be articulated more fully over the scope of what happens in other places in the industry, at least, and it needs to be based more on fact (the EU council report is one excellent source) and less on emotion (that picture of the duck with the broken bill was poignant, but the reality is, it's a rare happenstance and not at all representative of what happens most of the time). And whether we think foie gras is ethical or not (personnally, I think most industrial-scale food production is unethical in a number of ways), we can't try to tell people what "the right thing to do" is on Wikipedia. We are bound to describe all significant aspects of the controversy, saying why some people like it, and why others don't, for reasons that most often have nothing to do with the culinary. I'll admit this one thing: the edits you and Michael have brought to the article lately from the con side of the issue are sounding more and more encyclopedic and less like pushing a POV, certainly less than some previous con- editors. Maybe not in all places, but in Wikipedia, it's a good thing. :) --Ramdrake 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

Concerning this edit, please see WP:NLT -- any threats of legal action, credible or not, may result in an immediate and indefinite block from editing Wikipedia until those legal threats are withdrawn or otherwise resolved. While you are of course entirely free to pursue any and all legal options available, we do ask that you not edit the wiki while seriously considering or engaging in relevant legal actions. This note isn't intended to come across as "stern," although it probably will -- until I have reason to believe differently, I will assume you weren't aware of WP:NLT. Now, you are, so please do keep that in mind. Thank you. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use my real name. It isn't hidden; it may be only a click away from my Wikipedia user page; it can be found with a simple Google search, but I'd prefer that you not use it. SchmuckyTheCat 17:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: your comments at SchmuckyTheCat's talkpage

I noticed this when I was following up on the current WP:RFCU regarding the Farm Sanctuary article (since I protected the page I'm checking in occasionally to see where this is as I will likely be the one to unprotect it once this is resolved). There is no hard and fast rule against using another editor's real name, but if they have requested nicely that you do not use their real name it is generally considered rather rude and uncivil to continue to do so and sometimes the edits where that real name is mentioned will be stricken from the page history. Some people are rather cavalier with their real identities here, but I'd strongly suggest that if someone asks you not to use their real name that you comply with that request.--Isotope23 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)