Conquer Club

debbie4eva wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Heh, I was actually referring to the renaming of fish to sea kittens.

Seems I unwittingly you caught you in the act.

That normally happens. When I was 16 my dad caught me masturbating with my new dildo.

*Kills SeaKitten"

MeDeFe wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Since when was it a competition in awkward? I'm sure they were both satisfyingly embarrassed.

PS. I think you mean "for whom"

To my knowledge both forms are correct, "whom" is more formal though.

No, to be completely correct, you must use "who" and "whom" in the proper place. It's become so uncommon to use "whom" correctly, though, that it's generally accepted when someone says something like "The person who you love is a fat witch." But when you pull out a <insert preposition> + who(m), you're already in the realm of grammar nazi. So it should be "for whom" in that case. No one ever says "for who."

I checked my DCE and it agrees with me that "whom" is very formal and not commonly used. That said, the poor man's corpus Google appears to confirm your claim that "whom" is more often used together with a preposition than "who", though not overwhelmingly so. However, I did some random sampling of the results and they were often heavily biased towards literature (especially "for whom", Hemingway owns that one and "within whom", a complete victory for the bible).

Use whom where you would use him. Use who where you would use he. However, I break the rule frequently.

EvilPurpleMonkey wrote:

debbie4eva wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Heh, I was actually referring to the renaming of fish to sea kittens.

Seems I unwittingly you caught you in the act.

That normally happens. When I was 16 my dad caught me masturbating with my new dildo.

*Kills SeaKitten"

Screw that, I'll eat it!

And welcome back.

wcaclimbing wrote:Do you think they taste like real kittens?
or if you keep them for long enough they grow up into catfish?

tragic, but it had to be said... you more got here first than anything..but nice delivery..you deserve at least one

when this goes though, and it will go through...peta never fails in an objective... I feel bad for the first guy to lose his leg to a great white sea kitty...i mean...it just doesnt make as good a story...

also, there is an fish odor=kitty joke here...but its highly inappropriate for this forum.

what will they call fishing after this... sea-kitty herding...i am assumig peta doesnt want all fishing stopped since there would be a rather large pile of humans to get rid of...and even if those lives mean nothing...it would be its own ecological disaster in itself...or maybe they just get processed as sea-kitty-food

just one more... ironically the same exact technique in fly fishing will actually catch sea kittens, and actual kittens as it turns out (and im not suggesting using hooks for the actual kittens... just getting them close and grabbing the little things...dont be insane)

over all personally i think peta is going the wrong way with this... i think they should becoming up with disgusting names for the kittens so that while killing them may not be as difficult, eating them will.

such a name escapes me at the moment, but feel free to chime in with...new names for fish...that no one would ever dare eat

I went on clicked on the link and made my very own sea kitten. I name him dumb ass.

Mine, to embed somewhere for later use:



PS. I named it Martin Ronne.

debbie4eva wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

debbie4eva wrote:IF we rename cocaine 'happy cabbage' or something, it won't become legal. This is a stupid idea.

Maybe it will in the long run; we haven't tried it yet, right?

This is blatant subliminal messaging...

Damn, foiled.

And if we renamed that arse "panty kittens", we'd ... what was I saying?

Why would the organization entitled "People Eating Tasty Animals" give a darn about this endeavor? I am confoozed.............

This makes me want to go up to the head of PETA and bash his head into his desk. Not to kill him but hopefully knock some sense back into him.

strike wolf wrote:This makes me want to go up to the head of PETA and bash his head into his desk. Not to kill him but hopefully knock some sense back into him.

I'm thinking he does that already to come up with an idea like renaming fish "sea kittens."

What's PETA gonna do in the countries where it's common for people to eat cats and dogs, like Vietnam. Call them Sea Ho Chi Minh Commies?

i just had some sword-kitty for lunch.

Now im not sure if its my stomach rumbling, or just purring

Martin Ronne wrote:What's PETA gonna do in the countries where it's common for people to eat cats and dogs, like Vietnam. Call them Sea Ho Chi Minh Commies?

Funny!

If you eat a fish, you eat a cat. They're both animals. They both provide food. Cooked correctly, they're both quite tasty. What's the difference?

Rub your belly, and see if it gets louder.

lol martin

I have never understood the PETA crowd. I think there should be controls in place so we don't over fish/hunt animals to extinction, but' cmon. Sea Kittens?

I will never give up Sushi!

I dont want to be disrespectful here, but I just ate a bunch of different types of sea kittens. Whats funny, is I more or less call fish this now. Its for joking purposes, but its catching on. I suppose it does make me think of them as being a little more cute and cuddly than they really are, but so far, it hasnt slowed my consumption. I must have had no less than 7 different types just tonight, including some shellfish. Im not sure Ill ever be able to call a lobster a sea kitten though. Its gonna need an even better ad campaign than the fish....err sea kittens I think.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

EvilPurpleMonkey wrote:I can't believe PETA is actually trying this.

PETA had (maybe has?) a campaign to convince folks not to wear wool because sheep get "mauled". I lived by sheep farms for years ... a shearer who knicked the sheep, never mind the kinds of gashes they would display, was unlikely to be asked back.

I mean, barbers sometimes knick toddlers ... because they wiggle. Nothing is fool proof, but their complete lack of honesty is scary. Even more scary is that so many actually believe them!


The REAL irony? If you want to look at species that are not threatened or endangered .... look at species that people actually USE regularly!

The number one reason for species loss is loss of habitat, not hunting or fishing (other than some ocean stocks) or ...

I'm actually fairly confident overfishing is the reason for "species loss" of fish, not loss of habitat. Erm, "over sea-kittening"

FabledIntegral wrote:
I'm actually fairly confident overfishing is the reason for "species loss" of fish, not loss of habitat. Erm, "over sea-kittening"

Uh ... FISH BIOLOGIST here.

It depends on the species. Some are depleted due to overfishing, but then, I did say "except for some ocean species" (sardines, for example .. and whales, which are a fishery, though not fish ). Many others (salmon, for example) are affected more by habitat. Most are affected by a combination of factors. In many cases we don't really and truly yet know why species are dying off (coral reef and related species, for example).