"george" wrote in message
newsG_vd.503997$wV.248751@attbi_s54...

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:5wPvd.656159$mD.341878@attbi_s02...
snip
Of course not. My mother got the death she wanted, but maybe not when
she
expected it (who does?). That is perhaps the only consolation I have
from
the
entire ordeal, that and the fact that she live a long life, was a good
woman who
worked her ass off for her family, and was loved by all who knew her.

I hope she didn't suffer, and offer my condolences for your loss.

BV.


Unfortunately, she did suffer a lot, but thankfully it didn't drag out for
years
like it does for some. I had an aunt who had Alzheimer's, and who
lingered for
12 years in a nursing home. I cannot imagine what her family went
through.
Anyway, thanks for the sentiment.


My wife's grandmother is going through this now, and as of a week or so ago,
she has become quite bad from what I understand. I am getting a direct
exposure to it's effects, so I feel your pain.

I think you are a ninny when it comes to the fish/pain issue (tongue in
cheek, of course) but I can definately feel for you in regards to your
mother.

BV.

How do you think most pet shops deal
with dying fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable
treatements? Ask you pet shop owner what he does. I think you will
be surprised at the answer, if he/she will even give it to you.

IME, pet shops let them die in the tank. Why? The hope is some (choose your
adjective) soul might come by and buy the fish because they think they can
"save" it. Not to mention the 2 week guarantee, so they're not out any
money if it does die. Thus, pet store fish are usually quite dead before
they're tossed in the trash. ~ jan


~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

OMGosh!!! Thanks for the boost up, Rebel Joe .... Whew - I feel ever so
much
better. Actually I was trying to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear ;-) LOL
Nedra

Lotus Garden:
http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
Backyard Pond:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836

"REBEL JOE" wrote in message
...
I LOVE OUR ICE QUEEN LEAVE HER ALONE LOL. DON'T MIND HIM NEDRA



http://community.webtv.net/rebeljoe/POND

OMGosh!!! Thanks for the boost up, Rebel Joe .... Whew - I feel ever so
much
better. Actually I was trying to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear ;-) LOL
Nedra

Lotus Garden:
http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
Backyard Pond:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836

"REBEL JOE" wrote in message
...
I LOVE OUR ICE QUEEN LEAVE HER ALONE LOL. DON'T MIND HIM NEDRA



http://community.webtv.net/rebeljoe/POND

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
newsG_vd.503997$wV.248751@attbi_s54...

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:5wPvd.656159$mD.341878@attbi_s02...
snip
Of course not. My mother got the death she wanted, but maybe not when
she
expected it (who does?). That is perhaps the only consolation I have
from
the
entire ordeal, that and the fact that she live a long life, was a good
woman who
worked her ass off for her family, and was loved by all who knew her.

I hope she didn't suffer, and offer my condolences for your loss.

BV.


Unfortunately, she did suffer a lot, but thankfully it didn't drag out for
years
like it does for some. I had an aunt who had Alzheimer's, and who
lingered for
12 years in a nursing home. I cannot imagine what her family went
through.
Anyway, thanks for the sentiment.


My wife's grandmother is going through this now, and as of a week or so ago,
she has become quite bad from what I understand. I am getting a direct
exposure to it's effects, so I feel your pain.

I think you are a ninny when it comes to the fish/pain issue (tongue in
cheek, of course) but I can definately feel for you in regards to your
mother.

BV.

Well, we all have our quirks, do we not?

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:_Q_vd.198222$V41.106219@attbi_s52...
snip
Doesn't this assume that fish process the pain in the same manner as
humans?

If by that you are asking if they process the stimulus in the same way,
the
answer is no, because they process the stimulus in their brainstem,
whereas we
take it a giant step further and filter it through our neocortex, which is
an
organ fish don't have. THAT is a quantum leap from what fish do.

Agreed, about the difference. (On a side note, I always giggle at the phrase
Quantum Leap. If it were a Quantum leap, the difference would be small, not
great. LOL) I don't however agree that pain can only be defined by what you
refer to as our emotional response. Just because humans respond to pain in
one way, does not mean that other species respond in the same manner.

That's the way it is defined in the pyhsiology text books. Take it up with the
NSF.

Isn't it possible that fish have a more simple thathurtsswimawaycortex?
We
can distinguish between a pinch in the butt and a kick in the ass,
because
we have the hardware/software. That doesn't mean that all pain
processing is
so capable in all animals. Isn't that a valid possibility?

You are confusing pain with stimulus. Pain is an emotional reaction to
harmful
stimulus, the reaction occurring in the neocortex of higher life forms.
Fish do
not have a neocortex and so cannot form the emotional reaction that we
call
pain. So their reaction is simply a fight or flight response originating
from
their midbrain.

It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree is
correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.

snip

I use the scientific definition. What are you using?

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:JR_vd.575185$D%.424645@attbi_s51...
snip
As for fish anatomy, I'd love to discuss that...and as you seem
knowledgeable, I'd love to further those discussions. In fact, I am
going to
run off now and start some new threads...

BV.


Probably a good idea. I can be tiresome sometimes.


Clearly we are all very passionate about this topic. Passion is rarely
tiresome, tiring, but not tiresome.


Well one result is that at least the group is still alive.


If the great salt battle of 2003-2004 can't kill this group, certainly the
fish/pain issue can't. LOL.


agreed. Not to open up old wounds, but I used salt a little this summer, and
found that my catfish wasn't very tolerant of it. I have a lot of limestone and
dolomite rocks in my pond that act as a buffer, so I don't think it is an issue
with my pond.

"george" wrote in message
news:jc5wd.760759$8_6.402731@attbi_s04...
snip
It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree
is
correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.

snip

I use the scientific definition. What are you using?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pain

BV,

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:jc5wd.760759$8_6.402731@attbi_s04...
snip
It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree
is
correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.

snip

I use the scientific definition. What are you using?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pain

BV,


From the National Academies:

The widely accepted definition of pain was developed by a taxonomy task force of
the International Association for the Study of Pain: "Pain is an unpleasant
sensory and emotional experience that is associated with actual or potential
tissue damage or described in such terms." A key feature of this definition is
that it goes on to say, "pain is always subjective. " This aspect of the
definition reflects on the issue Dr. Bayne raised when she commented about
interpretation of animal behavior and appearance by an observer based on
feelings of the observer. We naturally have the tendency, when we observe an
animal, to use our own past experiences to interpret and comment on what we
perceive or believe to be the animal's status relative to discomfort, pain, or
distress. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for our past personal
experiences to be meaningfully applied to an animal. Training and experience in
studying and observing animal behavior are required to interpret what we observe
in nonhuman animals.

The subject is a sick fish lying on the kitchen counter, gasping and
contorting and appearing to even the youngest child to be uncomfortable.

You look at the fish and you think of how the National Academies defines
pain, what the researches at such and such institution have printed in
1000 words or more about the nervous systems of fish, about the relative
tolerance for acute and chronic discomfort of the human animal,
especially when closely related, to the small fish on the counter, and
then you discuss these matters at length on a couple newsgroups.

Meanwhile the little fish continues what you theorize is its
non-miserable gasping and contortions.

Is there something wrong with this picture? Am I detecting a peculiar
lack of spontaneous response to a creature in need? Can we say *empathy?*

Ruth Kazez



george wrote:
"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:jc5wd.760759$8_6.402731@attbi_s04...
snip

It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree

is

correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.

snip

I use the scientific definition. What are you using?


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pain

BV,



From the National Academies:

The widely accepted definition of pain was developed by a taxonomy task force of
the International Association for the Study of Pain: "Pain is an unpleasant
sensory and emotional experience that is associated with actual or potential
tissue damage or described in such terms." A key feature of this definition is
that it goes on to say, "pain is always subjective. " This aspect of the
definition reflects on the issue Dr. Bayne raised when she commented about
interpretation of animal behavior and appearance by an observer based on
feelings of the observer. We naturally have the tendency, when we observe an
animal, to use our own past experiences to interpret and comment on what we
perceive or believe to be the animal's status relative to discomfort, pain, or
distress. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for our past personal
experiences to be meaningfully applied to an animal. Training and experience in
studying and observing animal behavior are required to interpret what we observe
in nonhuman animals.

"rtk" wrote in message ...
The subject is a sick fish lying on the kitchen counter, gasping and
contorting and appearing to even the youngest child to be uncomfortable.

To you, maybe. I would never put a fish that was that alive in that situation.
The subject is a fish that is so sick that it can't swim, and just floats on
it's side and is incapable of fleeing when you put your hand around it.

You look at the fish and you think of how the National Academies defines pain,
what the researches at such and such institution have printed in 1000 words or
more about the nervous systems of fish, about the relative tolerance for acute
and chronic discomfort of the human animal, especially when closely related,
to the small fish on the counter, and then you discuss these matters at length
on a couple newsgroups.

Meanwhile the little fish continues what you theorize is its non-miserable
gasping and contortions.

Is there something wrong with this picture? Am I detecting a peculiar lack of
spontaneous response to a creature in need? Can we say *empathy?*

Ruth Kazez


Yes, there is something wrong with this picture. What is wrong is that you've
placed a sick fish that might be savable on a kitchen counter. See above. You
can have empathy for an animal and still put it down. We do it for horses. We
can certainly do it for a goldfish.

"rtk" wrote in message ...
The subject is a sick fish lying on the kitchen counter, gasping and
contorting and appearing to even the youngest child to be uncomfortable.

To you, maybe. I would never put a fish that was that alive in that situation.
The subject is a fish that is so sick that it can't swim, and just floats on
it's side and is incapable of fleeing when you put your hand around it.

You look at the fish and you think of how the National Academies defines pain,
what the researches at such and such institution have printed in 1000 words or
more about the nervous systems of fish, about the relative tolerance for acute
and chronic discomfort of the human animal, especially when closely related,
to the small fish on the counter, and then you discuss these matters at length
on a couple newsgroups.

Meanwhile the little fish continues what you theorize is its non-miserable
gasping and contortions.

Is there something wrong with this picture? Am I detecting a peculiar lack of
spontaneous response to a creature in need? Can we say *empathy?*

Ruth Kazez


Yes, there is something wrong with this picture. What is wrong is that you've
placed a sick fish that might be savable on a kitchen counter. See above. You
can have empathy for an animal and still put it down. We do it for horses. We
can certainly do it for a goldfish.

george wrote:
You
can have empathy for an animal and still put it down. We do it for horses. We
can certainly do it for a goldfish.

Put it down, yes, quickly and what appears painlessly to our empathetic
eyes. And if we're wrong and there's no pain, what harm have we done?

Ruth Kazez

george wrote:
You
can have empathy for an animal and still put it down. We do it for horses. We
can certainly do it for a goldfish.

Put it down, yes, quickly and what appears painlessly to our empathetic
eyes. And if we're wrong and there's no pain, what harm have we done?

Ruth Kazez

"george" wrote in message
news:8Ggwd.270267$R05.30763@attbi_s53...

"rtk" wrote in message
...
The subject is a sick fish lying on the kitchen counter, gasping and
contorting and appearing to even the youngest child to be uncomfortable.

To you, maybe. I would never put a fish that was that alive in that
situation.
The subject is a fish that is so sick that it can't swim, and just floats
on
it's side and is incapable of fleeing when you put your hand around it.

You look at the fish and you think of how the National Academies defines
pain,
what the researches at such and such institution have printed in 1000
words or
more about the nervous systems of fish, about the relative tolerance for
acute
and chronic discomfort of the human animal, especially when closely
related,
to the small fish on the counter, and then you discuss these matters at
length
on a couple newsgroups.

Meanwhile the little fish continues what you theorize is its
non-miserable
gasping and contortions.

Is there something wrong with this picture? Am I detecting a peculiar
lack of
spontaneous response to a creature in need? Can we say *empathy?*

Ruth Kazez


Yes, there is something wrong with this picture. What is wrong is that
you've
placed a sick fish that might be savable on a kitchen counter. See above.
You
can have empathy for an animal and still put it down. We do it for
horses. We
can certainly do it for a goldfish.


Now I am really confused...George, haven't you been arguein that you would
put a sick fish on the ground and let it gasp for breath until dead?

BV.