A fan lets Dan have it about his column on pets
(I’ll preface this finger-wagging email by saying I mostly enjoy your columns, and congratulate you for your recent awards–I’m sure they won’t be your last.)
But having wrote that, this must be one of the slowest news weeks in existence if your poor pets were the only thing that fell within range of your roving reporter’s eyes.
Of course you knew this column would hit some nerves–certainly nothing dull about it either. As a former (and much duller) reporter, I get it. I think.
All right, is this about the gist of it?
You view your pets as ornery, mean and worthless, and by your admission you yourself are flinty, stingy and worse. So when following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, by your own monetary standards, should you become ill, from –oh, lets say some type of poisoning — then no more than 500 bucks should ever be shelled out on your own heartless hide.
And since publishing this column you might consider employing a food taster. (Only slightly kidding.)
The above was written tongue in cheek–at least my tongue was sort of in that vicinity.
But people love their animals for good reason. They’d even love yours, given the chance. (Ok–don’t say it. I’m waaay ahead of you.)
And I think Lucky was very lucky–no misnomer there.