Your daily Letter to the Columnist — May 23, 2012
Wikimedia Commons
A fan lets Dan have it about his column on pets
Dan,
(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.
Linda Hopkins
STUART
May 23, 2012 - 2:33 PM
Test
What are you testing?
Have you had a strong reaction?
What is this?
Yeah, that’s TOTALLY logical. Let’s review:
Man who doesn’t really care for pets, but cares for his family => Indulges family cat’s desires for a few minutes while working => Decides to write column showcasing how pets are really just expensive, furry children => somehow for that is both worth “no more than 500 bucks” and “worthless” and deserves vague (I mean, OPEN) threats of poisoning…
Yeah, man… That’s sounds about right.
WHAT? How is it that you seem to be a looney toon magnet, Dan? I find these people absolutely fascinating, albeit a bit frightening. How does one become so far separated from logical thought and reality to wish [grave] injury on another human being for doing nothing more than expressing a benign opinion?
He’s not sacrificing blind kittens in his basement to a demon, lady! Were he a bachelor, he would probably not have pets. It goes no deeper than that. Even if he did, he would take care of their desires and needs just as he does now!
Ms. Hopkins, please notify the captain of the mothership that you would like to go home now. We miss you here on Mother Earth.
I have to admit I was surprised. Even my Sainted Mother didn’t like that one.
I am an absolute animal nut, I am ruled by a pack of 4 dogs and a queenly cat and until the death of one dog and a rabbit an even bigger “zoo”. I became a vegetarian over factory farming animal abuse and I STILL did not see a thing wrong with Dan’s column. Believe me, if he was not comfortable with a pet in the house, there would not be a pet in the house. He was being an honest curmudgeon but not a pet snob IMO. People do need to lighten up, and that is coming from ME!