Pathetic "Parents"
Wayne Marsh
Couples who refer to themselves as "parents" of furry four-legged
creatures.
To be childless is a valid choice -- I made it myself -- but to lampoon
actual parenthood, with its many true sacrifices and joys, by thinking
that you are a parent to a cat or dog, is simply pathetic -- even if you
dress and photograph the poor creature in cute "clothes" or feed it
organic tuna catfood or doggy "ice cream."
Wayne Marsh Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
wayne...@mac.com
catpandaddy
"Wayne Marsh" <wayne...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:waynegmarsh-C10A...@news.iphouse.com...
>A Christmas letter received today set me off on one of my pet peeves:
> Couples who refer to themselves as "parents" of furry four-legged
> creatures.
>
> To be childless is a valid choice -- I made it myself -- but to lampoon
> actual parenthood, with its many true sacrifices and joys, by thinking
> that you are a parent to a cat or dog, is simply pathetic -- even if you
> dress and photograph the poor creature in cute "clothes" or feed it
> organic tuna catfood or doggy "ice cream."
Lighten up, Francis.
Hell Toupee
> A Christmas letter received today set me off on one of my pet peeves:
> Couples who refer to themselves as "parents" of furry four-legged
> creatures.
>
> To be childless is a valid choice -- I made it myself -- but to lampoon
> actual parenthood,
Not to mention it's demeaning to the animals themselves. They are not
humans. They have their own (non-human) natures. Accept and enjoy them
as they are. Don't project characteristics upon them that they do not have.
I have a pet cat. He's a cat, not a person. I enjoy and appreciate his
cat nature. I'd certainly never take him for a human, but I wouldn't
want to, either - he's a cat.
Maybe some people just can't relate to animal natures, so they project
human qualities upon them in order to relate to them as faux-people.
Jules
> To be childless is a valid choice -- I made it myself -- but to lampoon
> actual parenthood, with its many true sacrifices and joys, by thinking
> that you are a parent to a cat or dog
Well, I guess there are sacrifices and joys with pet ownership, too. A
life is a life and all that, regardless of whose it is. I don't see the
harm in those who choose to term it 'parenthood' either...
> even if you
> dress and photograph the poor creature in cute "clothes" or feed it
> organic tuna catfood or doggy "ice cream."
... but that bit really doesn't make sense to me. I didn't even know there
*was* doggy ice cream!
cheers
Jules
catpandaddy
"Jules" <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.23....@remove.this.gmail.com...
There is another side to this, but I'm not in the mood to get into it just
now.
Wayne Marsh
Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't even know there
> *was* doggy ice cream!
Right there in the freezer case at Cub.
Mike Paulsen
> Wayne Marsh wrote:
>> A Christmas letter received today set me off on one of my pet peeves:
>> Couples who refer to themselves as "parents" of furry four-legged
>> creatures.
>>
>> To be childless is a valid choice -- I made it myself -- but to
>> lampoon actual parenthood,
>
Don't project characteristics upon them that they do not have.
I couldn't agree more. My dog hates it when I do that.
>
> I have a pet cat. He's a cat, not a person. I enjoy and appreciate his
> cat nature. I'd certainly never take him for a human, but I wouldn't
> want to, either - he's a cat.
>
> Maybe some people just can't relate to animal natures, so they project
> human qualities upon them in order to relate to them as faux-people.
made me think of this for some reason:
http://xkcd.com/629/
Scott Smith
>A Christmas letter received today set me off on one of my pet peeves:
>Couples who refer to themselves as "parents" of furry four-legged
>creatures.
>
>To be childless is a valid choice -- I made it myself -- but to lampoon
>actual parenthood, with its many true sacrifices and joys, by thinking
>that you are a parent to a cat or dog, is simply pathetic
It's no more pathetic than people paying homage to an invisible sky god
by buying mass quantities of consumer goods every year, IMO.
.
.
Scott Smith
<jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:04:13 -0600, Wayne Marsh wrote:
>>
>> To be childless is a valid choice -- I made it myself -- but to lampoon
>> actual parenthood, with its many true sacrifices and joys, by thinking
>> that you are a parent to a cat or dog
>
>Well, I guess there are sacrifices and joys with pet ownership, too. A
>life is a life and all that, regardless of whose it is. I don't see the
>harm in those who choose to term it 'parenthood' either...
I've met plenty of animal "pets" that had more personality and character than
the humans that owned them (and/or the children of those humans).
.
.
catpandaddy
"Scott Smith" <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:3t93j5dttm2luqjvu...@4ax.com...
And thus drops the other shoe.
Check, please.
Scott Smith
>In article <pan.2009.12.23....@remove.this.gmail.com>,
> Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't even know there
>> *was* doggy ice cream!
>
>Right there in the freezer case at Cub.
Organic pet foods and goofy dog treats really aren't any stranger
than organic baby foods or goofy kids treats, IMO.
.
.
Jules
> In article <pan.2009.12.23....@remove.this.gmail.com>,
> Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't even know there
>> *was* doggy ice cream!
>
> Right there in the freezer case at Cub.
Are you sure it's not human ice cream that tastes like dog? :-)
osmium
Just to make it even worse, some of those mass quantities are bought at
Walmart.
Scott, how could you possibly miss the obvious connection between doggy ice
cream and the evil Walmart?
catpandaddy
"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7pekm3...@mid.individual.net...
Everybody stop consuming right now! You are keeping way too many people
employed!
Mike O'Brien
> employed!
tis the season...
Scott Smith
wrote:
A purely capitalist society (or actually a plutocracy, in the case of
the U.S.) built upon dependencies of people buying cheap and
disposable (and usually imported) crap probably deserves to falter
at some point, IMO.
.
.
osmium
> A purely capitalist society (or actually a plutocracy, in the case of
> the U.S.) built upon dependencies of people buying cheap and
> disposable (and usually imported) crap probably deserves to falter
> at some point, IMO.
But aren't you glad you have been protected you from those unsafe Canadian
drugs? Plutocrats did that, Scott. They are only trying to protect you.
Jim Elwell
> made me think of this for some reason:
> http://xkcd.com/629/
xkcd archives have a 'toon appropriate for virtually every discussion on
Usenet.
I find it vaguely unsettling that we're so predictable.
Jim Land
> In article <pan.2009.12.23....@remove.this.gmail.com>,
> Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't even know there
>> *was* doggy ice cream!
>
> Right there in the freezer case at Cub.
Cub has a freezer case in the pet food aisle?
Doug McIntyre
The one nearest my house does have a small one. But others have
Frosty Paws in with the regular ice cream section.
You've probably looked at it, and never noticed it really, its been
around for years and years. Its made my Nestle, same as 1/3rd of the
other stuff in the grocery store anwyay.
I don't really see the big deal of a thread about dog food/snack that
happens to be frozen.
Scott Smith
wrote:
Just like they are trying to protect me from cheaper and more reliable
health insurance coverage?
.
.
Scott Smith
wrote:
>A Christmas letter received today set me off on one of my pet peeves:
>Couples who refer to themselves as "parents" of furry four-legged
>creatures.
>
>To be childless is a valid choice -- I made it myself -- but to lampoon
>actual parenthood, with its many true sacrifices and joys, by thinking
>that you are a parent to a cat or dog, is simply pathetic
The way some people "parent" their children, they should have
probably started practicing on "pets" first.
.
.
catpandaddy
You'd rather someone choose what everyone else should consider crap? In
that case, no more painting supplies! And forget stuffed animals too,
complete waste of time. And your favorite beer/dessert/books/whatever.
Gone!
Just kidding.... everyone have a merry spaghetti noodle gestation day, all
kidding and sniping aside. ;-)
catpandaddy
"Doug McIntyre" <mer...@geeks.org> wrote in message
news:4b32670d$0$47479$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net...
It's /Usenet/ after all.
Jules
> Mike Paulsen wrote:
>
>> made me think of this for some reason:
>> http://xkcd.com/629/
>
> xkcd archives have a 'toon appropriate for virtually every discussion on
> Usenet.
Agreed. Far as I know, nobody's written any code to take a usenet post and
cough up the most appropriate xkcd URL, though. That would be pretty
sweet.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> You'd rather someone choose what everyone else should consider crap?
Already done, all the time, every day. 90% of people spend 90% of their
money based on what other people think is valuable. They try to
*convince* themselves of some inherent value in things like big houses,
fancy clothes, diamonds and gold, SUVs, big screen TVs, or all sorts of
other luxuries that they occupy their time with. Meanwhile, farmers
continue to get the short shaft and people thumb their noses at
environmental issues.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
and probably your server, too.
catpandaddy
"Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-5C...@news.twtelecom.net...
> In article <hgtv1m$2v1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>> You'd rather someone choose what everyone else should consider crap?
>
> Already done, all the time, every day. 90% of people spend 90% of their
> money based on what other people think is valuable. They try to
> *convince* themselves of some inherent value in things like big houses,
> fancy clothes, diamonds and gold, SUVs, big screen TVs, or all sorts of
> other luxuries that they occupy their time with. Meanwhile, farmers
> continue to get the short shaft and people thumb their noses at
> environmental issues.
I will rephrase.
Perhaps Smith would wish for the government to regulate away all items he
personally has no use for. Nobody needs fine food. Just staples for
everyone. How big are his various televisions, what is his typical vacation
like, does he need anything larger than an average size apartment. How big
is his book collection. Things that a lot of impoverished people would
consider luxuries.
And I say this knowing full well that even with my humble accommodations and
station in life, I have to acknowledge that I still have it better than
some. My point is that once someone gives the power for anyone to put the
kabosh on things he finds extravagant, he may well find some of his own
indulgences being lumped in with those, however modest he might consider
them to be.
WDS
catpandaddy
"WDS" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote in message
news:hh0oct$18r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> The true pathetic parents are whoever did whatever to create LL.
JD: "Dr. Cox, do you have anything you'd like to say to my mom?"
Dr. Cox: "No, but I have something I'd like to say to her uterus, because
it brought you into this world."
[Smacks camera and shakes finger]
Dr. Cox: "Bad uterus! Don't do that anymore!"
Doc O'Leary
wrote:
> Perhaps Smith would wish for the government to regulate away all items he
> personally has no use for.
This is amusing to me, as do all mandatory false dichotomies. You see
the same kind of tortured logic in the health care debate: to keep the
government from doing everything it must do nothing at all. I'm as
against big government as any proper American should be, but that
doesn't mean I don't understand that we *all* have rights and
responsibilities as part of a civil society.
So, yes, if the consumers of luxuries are exhausting resources that
prevent the impoverished from getting their basic needs met, the
government should absolutely step in and do something about it. And the
smart rich people have no problem with this because they know that the
collapse of societal structure would hurt them more than the unwashed
masses.
> My point is that once someone gives the power for anyone to put the
> kabosh on things he finds extravagant, he may well find some of his own
> indulgences being lumped in with those, however modest he might consider
> them to be.
It's not about mere extravagance, though, its about people of any status
living beyond their means. That pretty much sums up 90% of the
population of America. Some do it in more obvious ways like carrying
around a lot of debt, but many do it in ways that are even more silent
and sinister, like their consumption of fossil fuels. If people won't
themselves exercise restraint, who do you propose do it if not the
government?
Scott Smith
You totally missed the point.
I'm not advocating a government that chooses everything for
it's citizens. I just believe that a purely Capitalist society is doomed
to sputter and falter. What we really need is a "true" Democracy...
not a Plutocracy/Oligarchy like we currently have in the U.S., because
we can all see where THAT is taking us.
.
.
Roughrider50
<scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:58:40 -0600, "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>Just like they are trying to protect me from cheaper and more reliable
>health insurance coverage?
>
>
>.
>.
No one is trying to protect you from anything, they're trying to
protect their country, & wallet from a socialist takeover.
.
The problem with socialism is that eventually
you run out of other people's money."
-Margaret Thatcher
Scott Smith
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:19:06 -0600, Scott Smith
><scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:58:40 -0600, "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Just like they are trying to protect me from cheaper and more reliable
>>health insurance coverage?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>No one is trying to protect you from anything, they're trying to
>protect their country, & wallet from a socialist takeover.
"socialist takeover"? LOL
You looney tunes conservative guys crack me up!
Happy holidays, fruitcake. ;-)
.
.
Roughrider50
<scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>"socialist takeover"? LOL
>
>You looney tunes conservative guys crack me up!
>
>Happy holidays, fruitcake. ;-)
>
>
>.
>.
And you left-wing utopians make me feel sorry for you.
happy holidays comrade.
Mike O'Brien
>>Happy holidays, fruitcake. ;-)
> And you left-wing utopians make me feel sorry for you.
> happy holidays comrade.
proving once again why "festivus" arrives..
Scott Smith
This group is the perfect place for the "airing of grievances" for Festivus! ;)
.
.
Scott Smith
>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:32:06 -0600, Scott Smith
><scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"socialist takeover"? LOL
>>
>>You looney tunes conservative guys crack me up!
>>
>>Happy holidays, fruitcake. ;-)
>>
>>
>And you left-wing utopians make me feel sorry for you.
It's always better to have a dream than to settle for the nightmare.
.
.
Roughrider50
<scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:27:17 -0600, Roughrider50 <cork...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:32:06 -0600, Scott Smith
>><scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"socialist takeover"? LOL
>>>
>>>You looney tunes conservative guys crack me up!
>>>
>>>Happy holidays, fruitcake. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>
>>And you left-wing utopians make me feel sorry for you.
>
>
>It's always better to have a dream than to settle for the nightmare.
>
Your right. I'm dreaming of the next elections rather than this
nightmare we're stuck with. You liberal loonies however live in dreams
rather than reality.
.
catpandaddy
"Roughrider50" <cork...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ip0fj553vns6mu020...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:23:31 -0600, Scott Smith
> <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:27:17 -0600, Roughrider50 <cork...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:32:06 -0600, Scott Smith
>>><scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"socialist takeover"? LOL
>>>>
>>>>You looney tunes conservative guys crack me up!
>>>>
>>>>Happy holidays, fruitcake. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>And you left-wing utopians make me feel sorry for you.
>>
>>
>>It's always better to have a dream than to settle for the nightmare.
>>
>
>
> Your right. I'm dreaming of the next elections rather than this
> nightmare we're stuck with. You liberal loonies however live in dreams
> rather than reality.
And neither of you groups on the far left OR right will even give the much
more reasonable moderates or centrists the time of day. QED.
John A. Weeks III
Roughrider50 <cork...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:23:31 -0600, Scott Smith
> <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:27:17 -0600, Roughrider50 <cork...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:32:06 -0600, Scott Smith
> >><scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"socialist takeover"? LOL
> >>>
> >>>You looney tunes conservative guys crack me up!
> >>>
> >>>Happy holidays, fruitcake. ;-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >>And you left-wing utopians make me feel sorry for you.
> >
> >
> >It's always better to have a dream than to settle for the nightmare.
> >
>
>
> Your right. I'm dreaming of the next elections rather than this
> nightmare we're stuck with. You liberal loonies however live in dreams
> rather than reality.
You are correct. I dream of a world where Micro Bush didn't get
us involved in a false war, torture foreign nationals, or crash
the economy.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Scott Smith
>In article <ip0fj553vns6mu020...@4ax.com>,
> Roughrider50 <cork...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:23:31 -0600, Scott Smith
>> <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:27:17 -0600, Roughrider50 <cork...@hotmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:32:06 -0600, Scott Smith
>> >><scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"socialist takeover"? LOL
>> >>>
>> >>>You looney tunes conservative guys crack me up!
>> >>>
>> >>>Happy holidays, fruitcake. ;-)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >>And you left-wing utopians make me feel sorry for you.
>> >
>> >
>> >It's always better to have a dream than to settle for the nightmare.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Your right. I'm dreaming of the next elections rather than this
>> nightmare we're stuck with. You liberal loonies however live in dreams
>> rather than reality.
>
>You are correct. I dream of a world where Micro Bush didn't get
>us involved in a false war, torture foreign nationals, or crash
>the economy.
Yes, how quickly the conservative kooks forget what was done over
the last decade to get the country into this "nightmare we're stuck with".
They are to blame for the mess, yet they point to Obama and the
Democrats as if they created it somehow. Typical.
.
.
D.A.Tsenuf
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-205CF4.1...@news-1.octanews.net...
> In article <ip0fj553vns6mu020...@4ax.com>,
> Roughrider50 <cork...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:23:31 -0600, Scott Smith
>> <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:27:17 -0600, Roughrider50 <cork...@hotmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:32:06 -0600, Scott Smith
>> >><scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"socialist takeover"? LOL
>> >>>
>> >>>You looney tunes conservative guys crack me up!
>> >>>
>> >>>Happy holidays, fruitcake. ;-)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >>And you left-wing utopians make me feel sorry for you.
>> >
>> >
>> >It's always better to have a dream than to settle for the nightmare.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Your right. I'm dreaming of the next elections rather than this
>> nightmare we're stuck with. You liberal loonies however live in dreams
>> rather than reality.
>
> You are correct. I dream of a world where Micro Bush didn't get
> us involved in a false war, torture foreign nationals, or crash
> the economy.
>
> -john-
You can get help for your BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)
And I'm happy to see that it has not morphed into PDS (Palin Derangement
Syndrome)
Scott Smith
The Bush administration didn't engage the U.S. in the war in Iraq, and
his administration didn't sanction torture?
John A. Weeks III
"D.A.Tsenuf" <D...@Tsenuf.com> wrote:
> And I'm happy to see that it has not morphed into PDS (Palin Derangement
> Syndrome)
Palin is sufficiently deranged without anyone else's help. She caved
in under the pressure of the campaign after she was outed as being
a total ditz, and then resigned in disgrace after being caught up in
an ethics scandal. All she needs now is a felony conviction and
she would be perfect material for the GOP nomination.
D.A.Tsenuf
> In article <cMidnZIXD8BroKXW...@posted.cpinternet>,
> "D.A.Tsenuf" <D...@Tsenuf.com> wrote:
>
>> And I'm happy to see that it has not morphed into PDS (Palin Derangement
>> Syndrome)
>
> Palin is sufficiently deranged without anyone else's help. She caved
> in under the pressure of the campaign after she was outed as being
> a total ditz, and then resigned in disgrace after being caught up in
> an ethics scandal. All she needs now is a felony conviction and
> she would be perfect material for the GOP nomination.
>
What "ethics scandal' was that ?
The one she was cleared on all allegations ?
Apparently you're even more blind from ideology than you've demonstrated in
the past.
Bu hey, at least you're a usefull idio.. uh parrot for the left
Just be warned, that historically, they always get rid of your type once
they are well-entrenched.
Scott Smith
I'm just curious...what is the color of the sky in your little imaginary world?
.
.