AskMe poster shoots rabbit?

June 19, 2005 11:06 PM

Fuckwit AskMefi poster wonders if torturing bunny rabbits is a good idea.
posted by Asparagirl to MetaFilter-related at 11:06 PM (134 comments total)

Ok, maybe he is a fuckwit, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt until we know better: he may have been trying to scare it from his garden.

At least he looked after shooting it the third time -- which is more than a total brute would do.
posted by orthogonality at 11:21 PM on June 19, 2005

I feel kind of bad for shooting it three times and wondering why it didn't move, what can i do to help it?.
posted by interrobang at 11:22 PM on June 19, 2005

(One of the) Worst Callouts EVAR. Seriously Asparagirl, take a deep breath and relax.

Also, if I were AMWKE I would have shot it again. At a much closer range. Just saying...
posted by sbutler at 11:46 PM on June 19, 2005

That's creepy and an altogether awful question that isn't really much of a question. I deleted it. I can't tell if it's a sick joke or a sick person.
posted by mathowie at 11:47 PM on June 19, 2005

Here's the original post:

After firing 3 pellets at it, closer inspection revealed the bunny had a broken leg. It's only moved like 8 feet in 3 hours, how can i help it?

I feel kind of bad for shooting it three times and wondering why it didn't move, what can i do to help it?. Should i call animal services in the morning?

posted by mathowie at 11:48 PM on June 19, 2005

Am I seeing some sort of weird caching issue? Cus the post is still on the green.

Anyone for an impromptu Minneapolis meetup with pitchforks and torches?
posted by nathan_teske at 11:53 PM on June 19, 2005

Well ... I think there's merit in the pointings-out that he may have been firing warning shots/trying to scare it off. That said ... why /is/ it under "sports & recreation"? To me, at least, it puts rather a different context on the posting. Maybe the poster just thought it a better tag than "pets and animals" or "grab bag." I don't know. Odd.
posted by Tuwa at 11:54 PM on June 19, 2005

I think this is a perfectly valid question: "I tried to drive an animal out of my yard, but it was in my yard because it was hurt, now what can I do to help?"

Unfortunately it could have been phrased better and people are flipping out over their interpretation of what happened (human maliciously shoots rabbit, thinks better of it). If you actually read the question it seems the rabbit was injured prior to any shooting and it was the lack of movement that first prompted warning shots and then the closer inspection. So now this poor guy has a hurt AND terrified animal in his yard and he doesn't know what to do. Or maybe the guy was a jerk, and I'm being really generous with my benefit of the doubt. But I really don't get anything "sick" from the question, just poorly-worded.

This was my response in the thread:

I think perhaps the rabbit was shot at, as in non-targeted warning shots because the rabbit wasn't moving while in the garden or whatever. After attempting to scare it away with the pellet gun failed, closer inspection revealed the rabbit wasn't being willful, but was instead injured and now probably terrified. Everyone needs to chill out.

AMWKE: Please call Animal Services, or a wildlife rescue organization if you have one in the area. You could attempt to corral the creature into a box of some kind to keep in the garage overnight to at least protect it from predators (or just go to bed and let nature take its course). You need to protect yourself too in this, here is a good basic overview of how to rescue wildlife.
posted by nelleish at 11:57 PM on June 19, 2005

For a certain class of upper-Midwesterners, shooting at anything which moves qualifies at sport. This includes small animals, cars, and highway signs. (Target practice for highway signs usually happens at 80 mph in the middle of the night so, arguably, the signs are moving.)

These are not true hunters. They are asshats.

And fwiw, this is the same person who asked about spinning rims a couple weeks ago.
posted by nathan_teske at 11:59 PM on June 19, 2005

mathowie writes "That's creepy and an altogether awful question that isn't really much of a question. I deleted it. I can't tell if it's a sick joke or a sick person."

He didn't say his shots hit it it, just that he shot at it. My guess is he was trying to scare it out of his garden, and the shots were designed to scare it. Maybe they hit the rabbit and caused the broken leg, maybe the leg had already been broken.

A complete brute would just have killed it once he realized it couldn't move.

But the poster isn't, apparently, a complete brute: he realized it was scared, but couldn't move because of the broken leg. So he then wanted to palliate it in some way. Being unfamiliar with first-aid for rabbits, he posted here.

The "sports & recreation" may refer to animal hunting, or it may refer to gardening.
posted by orthogonality at 12:01 AM on June 20, 2005

A complete brute would just have killed it once he realized it couldn't move.

A complete brute brave, responsible person would just have killed it once he realized it couldn't move.
posted by Jimbob at 12:06 AM on June 20, 2005

Wow. Where is this generalizations about MidWesterners and "spiining rims" coming about? That's horrible.

I'm going to call out Asparagirl and all the people who panicked in that thread. Maybe things were as nelleish described above. I mean, if you really cared about the bunny instead of making sure you got in your holier-than-thou shots, it would have been better to try to clear things up and help the guy help the rabbit, no?

Now, with the thread gone...well so is, definitely the rabbit.
posted by vacapinta at 12:07 AM on June 20, 2005

The "sports & recreation" may refer to animal hunting, or it may refer to gardening.

Until there's an Olympic medal for Biggest Tomatoes, you're really stretching to give the benefit of the doubt.
posted by Rothko at 12:08 AM on June 20, 2005

I mean, if you really cared about the bunny instead of making sure you got in your holier-than-thou shots, it would have been better to try to clear things up and help the guy help the rabbit, no?

If he knew anything about guns, hunting or shooting animals, he'd have known to put the wounded animal out of its misery without having to ask.
posted by Rothko at 12:13 AM on June 20, 2005

On post-view: nelleish.

(Offtopic: nelleish, how'd you happen to have the full text of your comment after mathowie deleted the thread it was in? Giant copy buffer, and the post in it because you'd copied it to the spellchecker, like me? Or something else?)
posted by orthogonality at 12:15 AM on June 20, 2005

he may have been trying to scare it from his garden.

As my reply said before the thread was deleted, $20 of chicken wire or a can of powdered predator urine sprinkled around a garden would be a much better deterrent than discharging a loaded weapon at the bunny, much less discharging the weapon into the bunny.

Furthermore, we have no idea if AMWKE even has a garden, it's just conjecture. And further to that, unless he's actually growing lettuce or carrots, the majority of any other type of vegetable you can grow in a Minnesota backyard is not likely to be eaten or injured by a bunny. Nor would any person or pet possibly be hurt by a bunny--this isn't a coyote or a raccoon, it's a harmless gentle herbivore, usually terrified of human contact.

nelleish: I hope your interpretation is the right one, but the plain-meaning interpretation of his comments, which everyone else in the thread also got from it, is that AMWKE himself fired the shots that injured the bunny--which, coupled with the bizzarro "gee, now that I've shot it, should I take it to a vet tomorrow?" take is really adding insult to injury.
posted by Asparagirl at 12:22 AM on June 20, 2005

vacapinta - Where is this generalizations about MidWesterners and "spiining rims" coming about? That's horrible.

That would be attributed to my childhood, my surroundings, and deep-seated sense of biting sarcasm?
posted by nathan_teske at 12:27 AM on June 20, 2005

unless he's actually growing lettuce or carrots, the majority of any other type of vegetable you can grow in a Minnesota backyard is not likely to be eaten or injured by a bunny.

That's total crap. Rabbits (you know, those things that bunnies rapidly grow into) can cause tremendous damage to a wide variety of plants. That's not an excuse for inhumane behavior, but it's a very good reason to want them off your property.
posted by Galvatron at 12:40 AM on June 20, 2005

Rothko : "If he knew anything about guns, hunting or shooting animals, he'd have known to put the wounded animal out of its misery without having to ask."

So the apparent conclusion then is, "since he had to ask, he didn't know anything about guns, hunting, or shooting animals, therefore someone should tell him he should put the wounded animal out of its misery".

I mean, that kind of logic would seem to invalidate all questions. "I'm looking for a certain font. What is it?" "If you knew anything about fonts or finding fonts, you'd know about font-searching sites without having to ask." "I'd like to know where the phrase 'I'm a little verklempt' comes from" "If you knew anything about Saturday Night Live or Michael Myers, you'd know about the Church Lady without having to ask."

Isn't one of the pillars of AskMe that you don't know the answer, hence asking, and that other people know the answer, hence they answer?
posted by bugbread at 12:41 AM on June 20, 2005

Isn't one of the pillars of AskMe that you don't know the answer, hence asking, and that other people know the answer, hence they answer?

If that's the case, perhaps I should post a question along the following lines:

"I shot someone trespassing on my property, who is suffering a broken leg. He claims he was hunting rabbits. I feel a little bad about it, but I'm also kind of sleepy; should I call the police in the morning?"

Or should we be able to expect a certain level of common sense in the content of the questions being posed?

Also: at the very least, animal cruelty is against the law, at least in some parts of the United States. Therefore, this question is asking us to participate in illegal behavior by providing answers that acknowledge and allow the animal to suffer.

I agree that people should be given the benefit of the doubt. However, this post, if legitimate, was worded quite poorly and the poster did not show up to qualify it with any further explanation. In my book, even though s/he probably doesn't care about my opinion, as is generally the case with pathological sadists, that would make him or her a jerk until further notice.
posted by Rothko at 12:50 AM on June 20, 2005

Rothko writes "However, this post, if legitimate, was worded quite poorly and the poster did not show up to qualify it with any further explanation. In my book, even though s/he probably doesn't care about my opinion, as is generally the case with pathological sadists, that would make him or her a jerk until further notice."

Perhaps he was panicked and trying to deal with a crippled, bleeding, terrified rabbit.

Maybe he'd asked elsewhere too, on usenet or in other fora or in a chatroom.
posted by orthogonality at 12:54 AM on June 20, 2005

Perhaps he was panicked and trying to deal with a crippled, bleeding, terrified rabbit.

Perhaps. But unless he or she was banned, TOed, or doesn't know about the post's subsequent autopsy on MetaTalk's dissection tray, the poster could have explained his or her intentions and purposes better, either here or in AskMe, no?

Maybe he'd asked elsewhere too, on usenet or in other fora or in a chatroom.

Then he or she will be all set, and the offensive question was deleted here, so: Nothing to worry about.
posted by Rothko at 1:01 AM on June 20, 2005

Asparagirl: To me, my reading just seemed a much more logical sequence of events than: shooting at something with the intention of hurting it then "wondering why it didn't move" then suddenly growing a conscience and deciding to try and help it. But I might just be feeling unusually generous in my interpretation of human motives at the moment. Maybe the fact that I was nearly hysterical and even less understandable myself when I recently killed a rabbit with my car makes me unreasonably sympathetic?

In any event, I think any post that combines "gun" "shot at" and "rabbit" is going to get people riled up. I've kept rabbits as pets, I know perfectly well they're cute and endearing. In the end, the right answer was to put it out of its misery since regardless of how the rabbit got into its injured state, its life was effectively over and it was entering the food chain. Unless the rabbit was only marginally injured (and from his description of its rate of movement, not likely), Animal Services weren't going to be able to do much for it anyway.

(offtopic to orthogonality: I use firefox, the thread was still open in another tab)
posted by nelleish at 1:02 AM on June 20, 2005

[reason: violation of site ideology]
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:07 AM on June 20, 2005

Ethereal Bligh OTM.
posted by Marquis at 1:52 AM on June 20, 2005

I thought Americans were better shots.

anyway (and please Asparagirl don't take this personally) maybe the poster was trying to bulldoze his yard and the rabbit didn't let him:

I originally typed "tragic" and then sat for a second thinking about that. I decided to save the word "tragic" for actual tragedies, like the deaths of people killed by terrorists, not for the accidental death of a rabbit. The rabbit's death is just that: unfortunate. It shouldn't be dead, it's sad for the rabbit's family and friends that it's dead, but it is. But I'll save my tears.

ah, perspective.

;)
posted by matteo at 2:04 AM on June 20, 2005

animal cruelty is against the law, at least in some parts of the United States.

Priceless.
posted by veedubya at 2:09 AM on June 20, 2005

Am i the only one that condones torture on the bases that they victims are KNOWN terrorists. Let's say they invade an al qaeda training camp, take the whole camp prioner. I'd torture the ones who wouldn't talk. I'd bribe first though, than torture.

I didn't see that comment posted onto metatalk.
posted by seanyboy at 2:12 AM on June 20, 2005

animal cruelty is against the law, at least in some parts of the United States.

Priceless.

You're right, animal cruelty is now illegal in all fifty states. My apologies.
posted by Rothko at 2:22 AM on June 20, 2005

Hey, clearly a memory hole thing, but I noticed Asparagirl posted this four times earlier this morning -- wtf was that? Bug, spam or just plain tiredness?

>I didn't see that comment posted onto metatalk.

Because no rabbits were tortured in that episode. And a very nice catch, indeed, seanyboy.
posted by gsb at 2:22 AM on June 20, 2005

I agree with matteo. This is a nasty thing, but it's not that bad. I'd say that it wasn't as bad as buying diamonds (for example), and how many times have people asked Diamond related questions on ask. I'd also say that it was only slightly worse than the second hand suffering all meat eaters impose onto the animal kingdom. And admit it, you have animals killed so you can eat meat for your own personal enjoyment.
posted by seanyboy at 2:24 AM on June 20, 2005

admit it, you have animals killed so you can eat meat for your own personal enjoyment

More of a nutrition thing for me - I don't really enjoy it.
posted by the cuban at 2:33 AM on June 20, 2005

And admit it, you have animals killed so you can eat meat for your own personal enjoyment.

Yeah, it's not that bad, but it's not good either. But as a rule, farms don't take their time in torturing the animal to death — to have their "kicks", so to speak — before it is turned into meat.
posted by Rothko at 2:34 AM on June 20, 2005

Okay, now I think we're spliting hares.
posted by taz at 2:38 AM on June 20, 2005

um. you know, "splitting"
posted by taz at 2:39 AM on June 20, 2005

Rothko : "Or should we be able to expect a certain level of common sense in the content of the questions being posed?"

Yes, and in the case that someone hasn't exhibited common sense, we should probably provide the common sense answer, and, if it rocks your boat, chide them for not having common sense. However, it seems ridiculuous to answer "I'm not going to tell you, because you should already know" to a question where someone's got a bleeding crippled rabbit in their back yard. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Unless, of course, spiting someone for not having common sense is more important to you than helping fix a possible animal cruelty situation.

Rothko : "Therefore, this question is asking us to participate in illegal behavior by providing answers that acknowledge and allow the animal to suffer."

Acknowledging a suffering animal is not participating in illegal behavior. And answers that allow the animal to suffer are not the only answers you could give. "Take it to a veterinarian", for example, is providing an answer, and not participating in illegal behavior.

Rothko : "However, this post, if legitimate, was worded quite poorly and the poster did not show up to qualify it with any further explanation."

Agreed.

Rothko : "In my book, even though s/he probably doesn't care about my opinion, as is generally the case with pathological sadists, that would make him or her a jerk until further notice."

Wow. That's a pretty horrible semantic trick. You, Rothko, probably have never met me in person, as is generally the case with serial killer pedophiles.
Besides which, I'm not sure if you've met any pathological sadists, but having known some lizard and ant torturers in junior high, allow me to say that a sadist is really really unlikely to ask a bunch of people what to do to help an injured animal. "Does anyone know any creative ways to remove its eyeballs?", perhaps, but "What can I do to help it?" does not sound exactly like the words of a pathological sadist.
posted by bugbread at 2:50 AM on June 20, 2005

the cuban: I don't know about cuba, but in the UK and US, it's perfectly easy to subsist on nothing but plant matter. We even have a name for the people who do it. They're called vegetarians.

Rothko: Animals are not tortured for kicks, but a lot of them suffer unneccasarily. I'd agree that there is a difference, but think it's important to highlight that this is what the difference is. There's a famous quote about puritans not disagreeing with torture, but only disagreeing with the enjoyment of that torture which would be relevant, but I don't know what it is.
posted by seanyboy at 2:52 AM on June 20, 2005

"What can I do to help it?" does not sound exactly like the words of a pathological sadist.

"What can I do to help it (in the morning)?" sounds a little weird to me, sorry. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
posted by Rothko at 2:53 AM on June 20, 2005

Happy Fun Torture Time.
Would a question about boiling Lobsters be OK for Ask?
posted by seanyboy at 3:00 AM on June 20, 2005

Rothko : "'What can I do to help it (in the morning)?' sounds a little weird to me, sorry. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree."

Ah, ok, that makes a bit more sense (the "in the morning" bit). But...the question isn't really "what can I do to help it in the morning?", it's "What can I do to help it? Call animal services in the morning?", which, if animal services isn't 24/7, seems innocuous to me. That is, it can be easily and naturally parsed as "What can I do to help it now, or would the best thing be to call animal services when they are available?"

I know shit about animals. I'm a city boy. I know that you shoot horses with broken legs, and dogs with rabies. Past that, I'd rather check with other people. For example, with small animals, I have some vague memory that if you touch them, your scent gets stuck on them and their parents won't take them back. So faced with a little injured bunny, I'd be unsure whether I should bring it in where its safe, or whether that would cause its parents to kick it out. I'd be unsure whether I should try to even approach it, or if bunnies (like armadillos) carry lots of bad diseases like rabies. Basically, I'd know I have to do something, but be pretty unsure of what to do, and, being at night, not have access to animal services, and end out posting on Mefi or somewhere else. "Should I leave it out there, bring it in, feed it, not feed it, put it out of its misery, allow it to live its natural life, or is my only option to wait till morning and call animal services?"

I'm not saying he isn't a sadist. I have no idea. But calling him a sadist because he wasn't very clear is like calling someone a pedophile for calling a little kid cute. Yes, it might be true, but it might not, and I would hope that you don't get criminal intent assigned just for not writing bugbread or EB-like word hordes of explanation.
posted by bugbread at 3:08 AM on June 20, 2005

But calling him a sadist because he wasn't very clear is like calling someone a pedophile for calling a little kid cute. Yes, it might be true, but it might not, and I would hope that you don't get criminal intent assigned just for not writing bugbread or EB-like word hordes of explanation.

If you have to put down bugbread or EB-like word-hordes to ask a question about an animal you've just shot, which doesn't come off as a diary entry of a nut, then there's a problem with the system, yep. Total agreement.
posted by Rothko at 3:21 AM on June 20, 2005

metafilter: urbanized anthropomorphizing rodent worshippers in full flight from reality.
posted by quonsar at 4:08 AM on June 20, 2005

rabbits are lagomorphs, quonsar, not rodents
posted by matteo at 4:32 AM on June 20, 2005

metafilter: urbanized anthropomorphizing hare-splitting lagomorph worshippers in full flight from reality
posted by matteo at 4:32 AM on June 20, 2005

Rothko, I don't see anything wrong with that post whatsoever. The guy did shoot a rabbit and now wants to help it, but there is absolutely zero indication as to why he shot the rabbit. It is your own, completely unfounded opinion that this guy shot the rabbit as some sort of malicious torture scheme--which, if really you think about it, is pretty fucking stupid because AMWKE's posting history show no indications that he's the kind of person that would torture a rabbit and then brag about it on an internet board. In the future, perhaps you should consider asking for clarification rather than immediately leaping to the worst possible conclusion. Really, get a grip.

I can't imagine how you people even make it through the day if you're constantly assuming the absolute worst about people.
posted by nixerman at 4:46 AM on June 20, 2005

I'm just waiting for his next AskMe question about rabbit bbq.
posted by sebas at 5:06 AM on June 20, 2005

In the future, perhaps you should consider asking for clarification rather than immediately leaping to the worst possible conclusion. Really, get a grip.

In the future, perhaps you should have read what I actually wrote rather than just what you wanted to see. Really, get a grip.
posted by Rothko at 5:13 AM on June 20, 2005

In any case, this is Asparagirl's call-out. So take it up with her.
posted by Rothko at 5:16 AM on June 20, 2005

Rothko:

Just to be clear, while I'm disagreeing with you, my comments are not meant to be personal (ok, maybe the complaint about "s/he probably doesn't care about my opinion, as is generally the case with pathological sadists" is a bit more emotional and less distanced, but that's it. The rest is just friendly disagreement). I don't know if it came across that way or not, so I just wanted to be sure.
posted by bugbread at 5:28 AM on June 20, 2005

Asparagirl : "coupled with the bizzarro 'gee, now that I've shot it, should I take it to a vet tomorrow?' take is really adding insult to injury."

You figure? I'd say it's subtracting insult from injury. "Ok, I hurt it, but now I'd like to do right" is the kind of thing that there should be more of, not less (with the obvious point that not-hurting-in-the-first-place is the best and most optional choice). "Gee, now that I've shot it, should I pee on it?" is adding insult to injury.
posted by bugbread at 5:31 AM on June 20, 2005

Hell, a shovel would have sliced off that rabbit's head with ease and none of this pissing contest would have occurred.
posted by mischief at 5:33 AM on June 20, 2005

Cruelty bad. Lapin a La Cocotte good.
posted by mokujin at 5:37 AM on June 20, 2005

Just to be clear, while I'm disagreeing with you, my comments are not meant to be personal

Nor mine. I should have written, "s/he probably doesn't care about others opinions, as is generally the case with pathological sadists," which would have been clearer and perhaps less "personal". I think I'll stand with the rest of my comments until I see something otherwise from the poster. Thanks for the respectful convo.
posted by Rothko at 6:16 AM on June 20, 2005

Perfect solution:
Call animal services to take care of the bunny, and then someone here is sure to know an ALF cell member who can rough the guy up a little. Everyone's satisfied, problem solved.
posted by darukaru at 6:46 AM on June 20, 2005

Am I the only person on metafilter who thinks it's OK to shoot at varmints?
posted by dersins at 7:12 AM on June 20, 2005

Am I the only person on metafilter who thinks it's OK to shoot at varmints?

No.
posted by sbutler at 7:22 AM on June 20, 2005

"Am I the only person on metafilter who thinks it's OK to shoot at varmints?"

Only if you shoot to kill.
posted by mischief at 7:24 AM on June 20, 2005

I bet anything that this thread is more of a trainwreck then the one that was called-out.
posted by Snyder at 7:25 AM on June 20, 2005

"Only if you shoot to kill."

I never got the impression from what I've seen of the original question that the questioner was shooting to maim, injure, or torture.

In fact, this entire MeTa thread reeks of over-sensitivity, hysteria, and, not least, politics.

And I say that as a dyed-in-the-wool bleeding heart liberal.
posted by dersins at 7:29 AM on June 20, 2005

Two things:

1) This is a glorious MeTa thread, in a bizarro "look what we're all fixated on today!" sort of way.

2) I find that a good Rhone wine goes wonderfully with rabbit.

On preview:
*high-fives dersins*
posted by languagehat at 7:33 AM on June 20, 2005

mischief : "'Am I the only person on metafilter who thinks it's OK to shoot at varmints?'

"Only if you shoot to kill."

Dittoed. Or if you shoot at the ground in a direction far away from the varmint to make a huge scary booming sound. One or the other.
posted by bugbread at 7:39 AM on June 20, 2005

ONE NIGHT I HEARD A RABBIT SCREAM AS AN OWL CARRIED IT OFF.
posted by quonsar at 7:49 AM on June 20, 2005

"if you shoot at the ground in a direction far away from the varmint to make a huge scary booming sound"

Rarely works, they just come back, and a pellet gun does not make anything near "a huge scary booming sound".
posted by mischief at 7:50 AM on June 20, 2005

mischief : "a pellet gun does not make anything near 'a huge scary booming sound'."

Sorry, I should have been more clear: I was talking about "shooting varmints" in general, not in this specific (pellet gunny) case.
posted by bugbread at 7:57 AM on June 20, 2005

...But I'll save my tears.

ah, perspective

Nice find, matteo. And what seanyboy said: as a vegetarian, I'm constantly surprised by how upset people are by random little stories about some cute animal's unfortunate end, when they regularly support an industry which treats animals (from birth to death) in an often sickening way.

I'm not into hunting myself, but it is a far more sensible and humane relationship to animal life than the meat industry. Shooting the occasional bunny is morally more acceptable to me than consistent support of non-organic /non-free range slaughterhouses.
posted by mdn at 8:21 AM on June 20, 2005

whew. sometimes you people are just so delightfully wacky.
posted by glenwood at 8:31 AM on June 20, 2005

it's perfectly easy to subsist on nothing but plant matter.

Sorry but until I find a brand of coconut mushrooms that don't contain gelatine your comment is meaningless.
posted by biffa at 8:43 AM on June 20, 2005

And admit it, you have animals killed so you can eat meat for your own personal enjoyment.

I don't have them killed. They 'happen' to be killed, and I 'happen' to love eating them.

Rabbit? Steak? Rabbit steak? MMMmmm.
posted by justgary at 9:24 AM on June 20, 2005

You lie justgary. I've heard the rumours. You ordered the murder of every single one of those cute, harmless, tasty animals. You ordered the massacre and then you just laughed.
posted by seanyboy at 9:34 AM on June 20, 2005

Best (as in cutest) thing about skinning rabbits. The cutesy little socks they wear underneath their skin. It's so cuty-wuty-shmooty.
posted by seanyboy at 9:36 AM on June 20, 2005

Bugbread: Did the church lady appear on Coffee Talk sometime that I'm not aware of?
posted by nomad at 9:38 AM on June 20, 2005

nomad : "Bugbread: Did the church lady appear on Coffee Talk sometime that I'm not aware of?"

You wouldn't have to ask if you already knew.

Damn, damn, damn! For some reason part of my brain kept saying "Dana Carvey" while the rest of my brain said, "huh?!" Turns out the Dana Carvey part was trying to point out "Church Lady was Dana Carvey, you're thinking Coffee Talk with Mike Myers". Damn brain.
posted by bugbread at 9:59 AM on June 20, 2005

Ask any USAFA grad and they can tell you how to thump a bunny quickly and then turn him into dinner. (Of course last summer was the last time they trained for that, and they no longer do it at the Academy.)

I must say that I almost cried when I read this thread. Some things I would rather NOT know about.
posted by konolia at 10:02 AM on June 20, 2005

I noticed Asparagirl posted this four times earlier this morning -- wtf was that? Bug, spam or just plain tiredness?

It was a ColdFusion bug--hitting the post button went to a weird CF error page and never went through completely; then, suddenly, it all showed up in a flood.

But as a rule, farms don't take their time in torturing the animal to death — to have their "kicks", so to speak — before it is turned into meat.

Exactly.

If someone is so determined to shoot an animal, I would hope that:
1) the animal is actually causing property damage worthy of being labeled a varmint, or is posing a threat to people or pets, or is obviously sick.
2) simple alternatives have been exhausted already--the aforementioned chicken wire, predator urine, calling the local animal control, or using a humane (or preferably no-kill) trap. Even organic methods such as planting marigolds and garlic have been known to keep away rodents and rabbits (and, as a nice side effect, may increase your tomato plants' yields if you intersperse the plantings).
3) if shooting, shoot to kill. If you don't think you're a good enough shot to pull it off cleanly and safely, then don't try.

Look, I'm a meat-eater (though never rabbit, AFAIK), a long-time vegetable gardener in rabbit/squirrel/skunk/woodchuck/chipmunk territory (though not this year, when I have no backyard and am thus container gardening on my roof), and live in a household with a gun. But amazingly, no animals have yet been forced to die slowly on my lawn in my 10+ years of growing vegetables--but I guess that's only because I'm a hysterical lagomorph worshipper, or something.

And FWIW, Minnesota law allows shooting of rabbits by homeowners or renters, but only if the rabbits have caused past property damage. But methods of killing them that would cause prolonged suffering, such as poison, are banned. And the animal cruelty statutes clearly outlaw torture, neglect, or cruelly injuring animals. See also here, here, and here.

Very surprised that no one has yet broken into a chorus from "What's Opera, Doc?"
posted by Asparagirl at 10:20 AM on June 20, 2005

For what it's worth, Asparagirl, I sympathize with your instinctive disgust.

I am generally one to hand out more benefits than doubts, but if you're a Midwestern gardener savvy enough to raise crops successful enough to attract creatures, then you know you have four options:

1. Grow what local creatures don't eat.
2. Fence what you grow.
3. Don't fence, because you generously wish to provide an all-you-can-eat salad bar to your local wildlife.
4. Don't fence, and spend all your time in your garden with a gun.

So, someone put an open buffet down, shot one of his guests a few times (as opposed to driving it off with loud noises), left it to bleed to death in the night, then wandered in here asking what he could do about it in the morning. You needn't be an ideologue to find that repulsively stupid and cruel.
posted by melissa may at 10:34 AM on June 20, 2005

rabbits chew on EVERYTHING. that is all i have to add.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 10:37 AM on June 20, 2005

melissa may : "So, someone put an open buffet down, shot one of his guests a few times (as opposed to driving it off with loud noises), left it to bleed to death in the night, then wandered in here asking what he could do about it in the morning. You needn't be an ideologue to find that repulsively stupid and cruel."

Yes, that is repulsively stupid and cruel. It isn't the situation we're talking about, however. In the case we're talking about, someone put an open buffet down, possibly/probably shot one of his guests a few times (as opposed to driving it off with loud noises, if it were the case that the shots were the ones injuring the rabbit), then didn't know what to do since animal control wouldn't be available until morning, and asked what to do at night. You may find that disgusting and cruel as well, but I think it's a more valid discussion than what is disgusting and cruel that didn't happen.

After all, if that's the case, I'd say that you don't need to be an ideologue to find it disgusting or cruel to kill your neighbor's baby in order to use its skin to form a bandage for the rabbit.
posted by bugbread at 11:04 AM on June 20, 2005

I have no idea where people get the idea that farms don't torture animals to death.

Especially with factory farming, they're pretty much tortured their entire lives.
posted by carter at 11:13 AM on June 20, 2005

Don't you people have some work to do?
posted by 517 at 11:21 AM on June 20, 2005

517 : "Don't you people have some work to do?"

You are experiencing first hand the glory of night shifts.
posted by bugbread at 11:31 AM on June 20, 2005

In the case we're talking about, someone put an open buffet down, possibly/probably shot one of his guests a few times (as opposed to driving it off with loud noises, if it were the case that the shots were the ones injuring the rabbit), then didn't know what to do since animal control wouldn't be available until morning, and asked what to do at night.

You're reading as much into the poster's intent as anyone else, though.
posted by Rothko at 11:31 AM on June 20, 2005

Wow, bugbread, if someone aims a gun at an animal as opposed to a). in the air or b). not at all and then acts surprised when it doesn't move anymore, I'm going to stick to repulsive, stupid, and cruel as my adjectival choices. My noun of choice would be Lenny, except that Lenny at least pet his rabbits before being shocked and grieved to find that they no longer moved too good.
posted by melissa may at 11:36 AM on June 20, 2005

Rothko : "You're reading as much into the poster's intent as anyone else, though."

Probably true, but I'm not doing it intentionally, so I can't see which parts I'm reading in. Help me out.

melissa may : "Wow, bugbread, if someone aims a gun at an animal as opposed to a). in the air or b). not at all and then acts surprised when it doesn't move anymore, I'm going to stick to repulsive, stupid, and cruel as my adjectival choices."

Which is totally fine (though I don't get the "wow" part). My post was just pointing out that you should probably find what someone does (aiming a gun at an animal and then being surprised it doesn't move) to be repulsive, stupid, and cruel, and not find what someone doesn't do (leaving it to bleed to death at night, wandering in here in the morning) to be repulsive, stupid, and cruel.

It's like saying "I find Jeffrey Dahmer's killing and eating of victims and his slaughter of thousands of Cherokees between 1838 and 1839 to be horribly evil". And saying "You probably shouldn't find Jeffrey Dahmer evil for killing thousands of Cherokees in the mid 1830's" isn't defending Dahmer or denying that you should find him evil for killing and eating his victims between 1978 and 1994.
posted by bugbread at 12:15 PM on June 20, 2005

My noun of choice would be Lenny.

I sorta had Karl pegged as the varmit killing type.
posted by Cyrano at 12:18 PM on June 20, 2005

Probably true, but I'm not doing it intentionally, so I can't see which parts I'm reading in. Help me out.

That is, it can be easily and naturally parsed as "What can I do to help it now, or would the best thing be to call animal services when they are available?"

You are naturally parsing it as innocuous. I am naturally parsing it as indirectly gloating about animal torture. Without the original poster around, all either of us has to go on is the post itself.
posted by Rothko at 12:25 PM on June 20, 2005

clicky
posted by quonsar at 12:32 PM on June 20, 2005

Rothko : "I am naturally parsing it as indirectly gloating about animal torture."

Ah, ok. I was thinking "I'm parsing it just as its phrased", but now I realize my non-reading into of the post was actually a sort of reading-into (that is, my choice to take the post at face value was reading into the intentions of the poster, when there may have been ulterior motives). Thanks.
posted by bugbread at 12:33 PM on June 20, 2005

Rothko, ever heard of Occham's Razor? This is not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of common sense. Your interpretation of the post is just stupid. There's no reasonable defense for it. The poster could be a malicious, psycho who suffers from random bouts of sympathy but, hey, there's absolutely no reason to assume such. Instead, it's quite clear that he 1) shot an animal 2) the animal isn't quite dead 3) he wants to help it. Anything else you get from this is your own delusions.

(I could perhaps understand even if the post just disgusted you, which would be another matter, but your leap to condemn AMWKE under various animal cruelty laws is disgusting to the rest of us.)

And, here's the kicker. Even if the post actually was ambiguous, why on Earth would you leap to the worst possible interpretation? It is, as bugbread said, 'interpreting' somebody calling a child cute as a sexual come-on. I very much doubt AMWKE is the type of person who gets his kicks off watching animals bleed to death for 8 hours and then bragging about it on AskMe... but, ironically, after this thread, it's clear there are indeed a few crazies hanging out in the green. Hopefully it'll serve as a precedent and the next time something like this happens such hysterics will be politely ignored.
posted by nixerman at 12:50 PM on June 20, 2005

This is not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of common sense.

Common sense would have been AMWKE putting the poor animal out of its misery instead of asking such a foolish question here, playing devil's advocate and giving his or her intentions the benefit of the doubt for a moment.

Common sense would have seemingly been not to give this person a gun in the first place, but that's a whole other discussion, I wager.

Perhaps you could explain Occam's Razor to AMWKE: s/he could have picked this simplest of rational, humane options before asking the rest of us whether or not to leave a suffering animal lying around for a few hours while the animal services folks wake up.

Anything else you get from this is your own delusions.

I suppose I could easily call you deluded for the same reason, but then things get personal and there's little need for that.

I'd be happier not to call someone a sadist but evidence says otherwise. Sorry. On the other hand, if AMWKE shows up to explain him or herself, I have an open mind and would be happy to change it.
posted by Rothko at 1:05 PM on June 20, 2005

Your interpretation of the post is just stupid. There's no reasonable defense for it.

Except that every other commentor in the thread apparently came to the very same conclusion that he (and I, and Matt) did. But I guess this was just our "delusions" talking.
posted by Asparagirl at 1:06 PM on June 20, 2005

BOOM!
posted by matteo at 1:12 PM on June 20, 2005

Rothko : I have an open mind and would be happy to change it.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Rothko wins.
posted by dersins at 1:34 PM on June 20, 2005

?
posted by Rothko at 1:39 PM on June 20, 2005

Asparagirl : Except that every other commentor in the thread apparently came to the very same conclusion that he (and I, and Matt) did.

Uh, wrong. I count a minimum of five commentors who disagree with your interpretation. See if you can find them...
posted by dersins at 1:42 PM on June 20, 2005

Dersins, what's with your comment? Did you have a point to make?
posted by Rothko at 1:46 PM on June 20, 2005

You weren't making a funny?

Sorry. I must have misunderstood.
posted by dersins at 1:51 PM on June 20, 2005

Rothko : "Perhaps you could explain Occam's Razor to AMWKE: s/he could have picked this simplest of rational, humane options before asking the rest of us whether or not to leave a suffering animal lying around for a few hours while the animal services folks wake up."

Um...that's not how Occam's Razor is used. Occam's Razor says, basically, that "the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true" (i.e. the reason that requires the fewest assumptions). I don't think that AMWKE was having a hard time determining which explanation of anything was true.

Asparagirl : "Except that every other commentor in the thread apparently came to the very same conclusion that he (and I, and Matt) did."

That the guy did it out of sadism? Sure, every other commenter in the thread came to the same conclusion.

Oh, except the following folks, who either didn't make the same conclusion or didn't indicate or even particularly hint at what conclusions they made:

orthogonality
interrobang
sbutler
nathan_teske
Tuwa
nelleish
Jimbob
vacapinta
Galvatron
bugbread
Ethereal Bligh
Marquis
matteo
veedubya
seanyboy
the cuban
taz
quonsar
nixerman
mischief
dersins
sbutler
Snyder
languagehat
mdn
glenwood
biffa
justgary
nomad
weretable and the undead chairs
carter
517
cyrano

But, yeah, other than them, every single commentator in the thread came to the same conclusion.
posted by bugbread at 1:55 PM on June 20, 2005

Rothko:

Other than that, it just seems as though you (and Asparagirl, and, to a lesser extent, Melissa May) are on some sort of witch hunt to rid us of the scourge of people who don't like rabbits.

You've clearly let your feelings get in the way of your intepretations; as both Bugbread and nixerman have pointed out, there's no logical reason to make the assumptions that you have been making, yet you persist in them, insist on them.

Thus, I assumed you were making a joke when you suggested that you were keeping an open mind.

My bad.

Apparently.
posted by dersins at 1:57 PM on June 20, 2005

Um...that's not how Occam's Razor is used. Occam's Razor says, basically, that "the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true" (i.e. the reason that requires the fewest assumptions). I don't think that AMWKE was having a hard time determining which explanation of anything was true.

Apart from knowing how to spell it, Occam's Razor is indeed useful as a way to determine that the best possible choice among possible rational decisions is the simplest. You may not agree with the application, but that doesn't make it incorrect.
posted by Rothko at 2:00 PM on June 20, 2005

Rothko : "Occam's Razor is indeed useful as a way to determine that the best possible choice among possible rational decisions is the simplest. You may not agree with the application, but that doesn't make it incorrect."

True, but the way you phrase it ("Maybe you could explain Occam's Razor to AMWKE") makes it sound like what follows (the application not to explanations but courses of action) is inherent in Occam's Razor, as opposed to a valid application of it. Like using nail polish to fix a run in a stocking: it's very effective, but I probably wouldn't phrase it, "Maybe you could explain what nail polish is" when someone talks about running stockings.

Man, Rothko, you and I have some crazy semantic difficulties. While I disagree with your AMWKE conclusions, that's not why we keep having these phrasing run-ins. And I heart you for your even-keeledness. We just don't seem to interface well on a semantic basis.
posted by bugbread at 2:10 PM on June 20, 2005

You've clearly let your feelings get in the way of your intepretations; as both Bugbread and nixerman have pointed out, there's no logical reason to make the assumptions that you have been making, yet you persist in them, insist on them.

Just calling a spade a spade: It was a dumb, vicious question. The person probably should not have a gun, or should not be shooting at animals, if s/he has to come to AskMe to figure out how to deal with the aftermath. If that behavior is not sadist, then the person should come online and explain why. Otherwise, it is very simply what it is, and requires no further analysis.

I've said again and again I'd be happy to change my mind with rational input from AMWKE; with more than one person snarking, I now openly wonder how willing a certain few of you are to change yours.
posted by Rothko at 2:13 PM on June 20, 2005

And after saying that...sure enough, I'm the guy who said "how Occam's Razor is used". D'oh!! I should have said "how Occam's Razor is normally used" or "intended to be used". Apologies.
posted by bugbread at 2:15 PM on June 20, 2005

"If that behavior is not sadist..."

Given how the question was phrased, sadism has nothing to do with it. Sadism involves a conscious decision to do harm for the joy of it. "I feel kind of bad" by the questioner indicates no joy was derived from shooting it. Thus, no sadism.

I will agree that given the question as is, the questioner is too ignorant about pellet guns to be shooting one at animals.
posted by mischief at 2:38 PM on June 20, 2005

bugbread, no: I generally agree with Asparagirl's point, I just pointed out an odd discrepancy (I consider unarmed pacifists' lives as worthy as unarmed bunny rabbits' are), that's all. but I agree with Asparagirl that rabbits in the wild shouldn't be shot at if possible, and if indeed they get shot they should be helped/humanely put down. watching them suffer needlessly is not cool in my book.
posted by matteo at 3:37 PM on June 20, 2005

Matteo:

But that's not the part that bugbread is contesting. The point that he's contesting is that Asparagirl (and Rothko, and Melissa May) seem to believe the phrasing of the question should be interpreted to mean that the person asking it intended to sadistically torture the rabbit, rather than either help it or humanely put it down.

Jesus what the hell is wrong with me that I'm even participating in this conversation? I think I need a self-imposed time out from all things that start with meta.
posted by dersins at 3:54 PM on June 20, 2005

Sorry, matteo, that was a list of "people who disagree or haven't made their opinion clear", you having fallen into the second camp. It wasn't intended to show Asparagirl that she was wrong in thinking that maybe people agreed with her, just that she was wrong in saying that it was apparent that everyone else in the thread had come to the same conclusion as she. Now that you've clarified..um...imagine yourself deleted from the list. And everybody else, ignore matteo's name up there.
posted by bugbread at 4:05 PM on June 20, 2005

Yeah, it's time for me to leave too, because I don't think the guy is a sadist, just someone so stupid and callous that he does not understand that shooting pellets at a small living creature -- THREE TIMES -- is likely to make them fail to move, or breathe, or do much of anything ever again. Of all the ideas I ever expressed here that I suspected might engender sharp disagreement or cause the torture of small furry defenseless metaphors, I have to admit this one did not top my list.
posted by melissa may at 4:30 PM on June 20, 2005

Uh, wrong. I count a minimum of five commentors who disagree with your interpretation. See if you can find them...

The thread I was referring to was the original thread, which had about ten comments. Sorry that wasn't more clear.

My favorite response in that thread was the third one, I think--and I unfortunately forgot who wrote it--and was something like "come over to my place, and I'll fix both you and the rabbit right up..."
posted by Asparagirl at 6:13 PM on June 20, 2005

"'Your Majesty,' he cried, 'this creature returns from the Marshes of Kelfazin. The people of El-ahrairah are mustering for war. They say they are coming to attack Your Majesty's garden and steal the royal lettuces. May I have Your Majesty's order to take out the soldiers and destroy them?'

--Metaship Down
posted by Hat Maui at 7:59 PM on June 20, 2005

Asparagirl : "The thread I was referring to was the original thread, which had about ten comments. Sorry that wasn't more clear."

Ah, ok, sorry.
posted by bugbread at 8:12 PM on June 20, 2005

ONE-HUNDRED AND TEN COMMENTS!!!

I remember the (possibly apocryphal) tale of a campus anti-war group that threatened to napalm a puppy dog in the quadrangle. Natch, students came out in droves and would have done anything to stop it. The point was, of course, that these students cared more about a cute bunny rabbit than the actual human beings being napalmed. I think I had a point, but it's gone now. Anyway, I like bunny rabbits. Rather more than some people.

My favorite response in that thread was the third one, I think--and I unfortunately forgot who wrote it--and was something like "come over to my place, and I'll fix both you and the rabbit right up..."

That would be me, and the offer is still open...
posted by dreamsign at 8:57 PM on June 20, 2005

there's no logical reason to make the assumptions that you have been making, yet you persist in them, insist on them.

Just calling a spade a spade: It was a dumb, vicious question.

Dudes! I just ran over some old lady... THREE TIMES! Well, okay, once was like, going forwards, and the second was in reverse. The third was like, a total donut. Anyway, think I should get her some medical treatment? What's my obligation here, man?
posted by dreamsign at 9:00 PM on June 20, 2005

The third was like, a total donut.

Totally, dude? *laughs*
posted by Rothko at 9:16 PM on June 20, 2005

I love meat, cause meat = murder. And murder is sure damn tasty. ;)

::smacks lips::
posted by Dreamghost at 9:44 PM on June 20, 2005

Jeez, the *obvious* answer is rabbit stew. Yeesh. If you've got a vegetable garden, well, you're all set for seasonings, assuming you're growing some herbs indoors in the bathtub like everyone else (lol).
posted by shepd at 9:49 PM on June 20, 2005

Wait, I am confused - did we decide that it is OK to torture bunnies or not?
posted by dg at 9:57 PM on June 20, 2005

We couldn't decide if it was torture or not.
posted by carter at 10:20 PM on June 20, 2005

Except that every other commentor in the thread apparently came to the very same conclusion that he (and I, and Matt) did. But I guess this was just our "delusions" talking

Even if every other person did agree with that conclusion, the poor wording (whatever your opinion, the question was badly phrased) makes any conclusion about the author's intent or actions invalid without further commentary therefrom.

Apart from knowing how to spell it, Occam's Razor...

There are many accepted spellings of William of [Occam|Ockham|Occham|et cetera]'s birthplace.
posted by j.edwards at 10:34 PM on June 20, 2005

No, it's DUCK season!
posted by warbaby at 10:43 PM on June 20, 2005

Speaking as a vegan, what mdn said.
posted by rabble at 11:17 PM on June 20, 2005

And speaking as a retard, here's the CORRECT link.
posted by rabble at 11:18 PM on June 20, 2005

dreamsign : "Dudes! I just ran over some old lady... THREE TIMES!"

Personally, I find the guy at work who uses a roach motel to be sadistic. "Dudes! I locked up an old lady in my kitchen and STARVED HER TO DEATH!"

Oh, wait, humans and cockroaches aren't equivalent? But, but that makes my example completely inapplicable and silly!

oh.
posted by bugbread at 3:10 AM on June 21, 2005

Dude. I stole that ladies baby, locked it in a pen for 6 months, fattened it up and then ate it.

Dude, I hid a hook that was tied to some string in some food, and when she ate it, she was caught. I pulled the serrated metal out of her mouth and sent her on her way. I've been doing this for twenty years. It's my hobby.

Very amusing
posted by seanyboy at 4:16 AM on June 21, 2005

cockroaches are equivalent to rabbits? but that would make you a cruel, sadistic bastard? Oh.

I think THREE TIMES was the operant point. Clearly all caps was not enough. I shall resort to bold, italics, and flashing lettertype in the future.

your hobby sucks.
posted by dreamsign at 6:16 AM on June 21, 2005

dreamsign : "I think THREE TIMES was the operant point. Clearly all caps was not enough. I shall resort to bold, italics, and flashing lettertype in the future."

Ah, ok, if that was the part you wanted to put the emphasis on, and not the "old lady", or the "total donut", or the "my obligation" parts, I've tightened up what you wrote:

dreamsign : "Dudes! I just ran over some old lady... THREE TIMES! Well, okay, once was like, going forwards, and the second was in reverse. The third was like, a total donut. Anyway, think I should get her some medical treatment? What's my obligation here, man?"

To what it appears you wanted to write:

Dudes! I just shot a rabbit THREE TIMES! Well, to scare it off. Now it isn't moving. What should I do to help?"

I think that puts the emphasis you want on the part you want, and takes out the extraneous stuff that somehow snuck in.
posted by bugbread at 6:35 AM on June 21, 2005

Well this is all fascinating, but how's the rabbit doing?
posted by biffa at 9:28 AM on June 21, 2005

Hey Rabbit! If you're following this thread, I hope you're feeling better by now.
posted by jtron at 9:52 AM on June 21, 2005

for future use, though, what is the best way to euthanize an injured rabbit? Riding my bike to work the other day I came across an injured rabbit in the middle of the bike path. Obviously it had been struck by a car, but it was a glancing blow—the rabbit wasn't smeared all over the roadway but it wasn't able to use its rear legs to move and was obviously in pain.

I don't have access to a firearm, don't carry a knife, or any other implements that make euthanizing a rabbit easy. I suppose I had access to largish stone from a limestone fence in the neighborhood but dropping a paving stone on the poor thing didn't seem like a particularly humane way to end its misery. So what to do?

for the curious, I called animal control upon arrival at work. I checked on the way home and someone/thing had removed the rabbit. Was this the right course of action after all?
posted by Fezboy! at 10:40 AM on June 21, 2005

Just think how much longer that animal suffered while waiting for animal control. You should have just crushed its skull when you had the opportunity and ended its terror and misery.
posted by mischief at 11:40 AM on June 21, 2005

Thanks, mischief. I suppose, no matter how squicky I felt about doing it, that was probably the most ethical course of action.

-10 karma points to me...
posted by Fezboy! at 12:24 PM on June 21, 2005

The way I was taught to kill rabbits was to hold them by their hind feet and pet them until they go limp. They will stop squirming, relax and just hang there. Then you stroke rapidly along their spine from the tail to the head with a piece of 1/2" pipe or a heavy stick. When it hits the back of their head, the neck snaps and goodnight sweet wabbit.

Much less messy than killing chickens or ducks and much more certain than killing hogs. I hate it when hogs get back up while you are trying to stick them.

And BTW, it's DUCK season!
posted by warbaby at 3:28 PM on June 21, 2005

Eat the bunny.
posted by cytherea at 11:00 PM on June 21, 2005

Don't you kill chickens with a similar upside down then quick flick of the wrist to break the neck?
posted by biffa at 2:15 AM on June 22, 2005

Actually, here's a little bit on different ways to kill chickens, probably takes in both of what we were talking about.
posted by biffa at 2:18 AM on June 22, 2005