Eryn Vorn
Öjevind Lång
various strange creatures and peoples of Middle-earth; after all, we only
meet a relatively small selection of them in "The Lord of the Rings", which
certainly is not due to any lack of imagination on Tolkien's part; there
simply was not space enough for any more of them in a book as deplorably
short as LotR. Here is one example of what I mean. From Paline Baynes' map,
and an entry in Robert Foster's "The Complete Guide to Middle-earth", I know
that one of the peninsulas of coastal Eriador, Eryn Vorn, was actually
forested and populated. What information is there in "The History of
Middle-earth" (or anywhere else) about these people, their history and what
became of them in the Fourth Age?
And what information is there about other peoples and creatures not
mentioned (or only mentioned in passing) in LotR? The axe-wielding, short,
bearded Variags of Khand, for example? Of course, it is fascinating to
remember that "Variag" was the Byzantine name for the Vikings who founded
Russia and were then assimilated by the Slavs they led - did Tolkien
envisage his Variags as being the result of a similar occupation by people
related to the tribes of Rhovanion in th Second Age, and to the Rohirrim?
I do know the story (thought up after their turning up in LotR) of Queen
Berúthiel's cats. Apparently, they just turned up out of nowhere when
Tolkien wrote LotR - just the way cats tend to do in real life.
Öjevind
Michael O'Neill
<snip interesting future diversion>
> I do know the story (thought up after their turning up in LotR) of
> Queen Berúthiel's cats. Apparently, they just turned up out of nowhere > when Tolkien wrote LotR - just the way cats tend to do in real life.
>
> Öjevind
While I realise I may be pulling you back in time more years than you
might wish, Öjevind, I must remind you of the little facts we get told
at the appropriate time in our puberty.
Cats do not come out of nowhere.
The Mammy cat gets fucked stupid by several Tomcats and a few weeks
later has baby cats, called kittens.
Remember now?
Excuse me, I have to answer the door. One of our three cats is
scratching to get in [or out].
M.
Jon
Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> While I realise I may be pulling you back in time more years than you
> might wish, Öjevind, I must remind you of the little facts we get told
> at the appropriate time in our puberty.
> Cats do not come out of nowhere.
Why do they always appear at the bottom of one's shopping bag then?
Looking hopeful.....
Jon.
--
Sir Jon, KiTA * ICQ 21129860 *
Honorary member of the FaJiTA Sisterhood
Official Faerie Champion * TEUNC
Hot Madras * 'Oh no, he's at it again'
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jghall/
Mia Kalogjera
> > Cats do not come out of nowhere.
>
> Why do they always appear at the bottom of one's shopping bag then?
Never happened to me. I guess it's because cats can feel my hatred towards them, and
they tend to avoid me. Good for them.
--
http://TheOneRing.net - Lord of the Rings Movie news
and rumours: forged by and for FANS of J.R.R.Tolkien
Die Andere Seite: http://www.angelfire.com/ri/jereeza
e-mail: mia(at)theonering.net or jereeza(at)yahoo.com
Michael O'Neill
>
> In article <3885CFD0...@indigo.ie>,
> Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
> > While I realise I may be pulling you back in time more years than you
> > might wish, Öjevind, I must remind you of the little facts we get told
> > at the appropriate time in our puberty.
>
>
> Why do they always appear at the bottom of one's shopping bag then?
> Jon.
Because you shopped in the cat shop and bought one...?
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> Jon wrote:
>
> > > Cats do not come out of nowhere.
> >
> > Why do they always appear at the bottom of one's shopping bag then?
>
> they tend to avoid me. Good for them.
You *HATE* cats!?
Hssssssssssssssssssssssssttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fuggin nasssssty dragons are gonna get a few nasty scratches on their
tender bits...
M.
Tamfiiris
>You *HATE* cats!?
>Hssssssssssssssssssssssssttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Fuggin nasssssty dragons are gonna get a few nasty scratches on their
>tender bits...
OY! she is not a dragon! most dragons like cats, they actually _are_ like
cats in many respects. how dare you insult my noble race in such a
manner? *gives Onqie a you-are-the-scum-of-the-earth look, then starts
inspecting her talons.* actually, i couldn't care less.
--
Tamf
...we come, we come with horn and drum: ta-runa runa runa rom!
going offline in T - 30 days 3 hrs
Michael Martinez
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
[snip]
>What information is there in "The History of
>Middle-earth" (or anywhere else) about these people, their history and what
>became of them in the Fourth Age?
The people of Eryn Vorn were Gwathuirim who fled into the peninsula during the
War of the Elves and Sauron, according to one of the essays in UNFINISHED
TALES. Tolkien seems not to have developed any more specific history about
them, except to indicate their descendants still lived there at the end of the
Third Age.
> And what information is there about other peoples and creatures not
>mentioned (or only mentioned in passing) in LotR? The axe-wielding, short,
>bearded Variags of Khand, for example? Of course, it is fascinating to
>remember that "Variag" was the Byzantine name for the Vikings who founded
>Russia and were then assimilated by the Slavs they led - did Tolkien
>envisage his Variags as being the result of a similar occupation by people
>related to the tribes of Rhovanion in th Second Age, and to the Rohirrim?
No information on the axe-wielders or the Variags, except what is stated in
THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
grimgard
Mia Kalogjera wrote:
> Jon wrote:
>
> > > Cats do not come out of nowhere.
> >
> > Why do they always appear at the bottom of one's shopping bag then?
>
> Never happened to me. I guess it's because cats can feel my hatred towards them, and
> they tend to avoid me. Good for them.
>
My cat once got into one of the boxes in which I store some of my Middle Earth
collectibles. It's a cardboard box with a fitted lid, and she actually managed to
squeeze her little body in through one of the hand-holes. Of course, once in, she
couldn't get back out, and it took me over a half hour to find her. >-/
grimgard
Jon
> > > Cats do not come out of nowhere.
> >
> > Why do they always appear at the bottom of one's shopping bag then?
> > Looking hopeful.....
> > Jon.
> Because you shopped in the cat shop and bought one...?
You miss my point. Whenever one unpacks the weekly shopping, there is
always a cat to be found, uaually at the bottom of the shopping bag,
looking hopeful.
There is usually one around when one opens the 'fridge as well, as just
happened here.
Jon.
--
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jghall/fairport/fc.html
Home of the Fairport Convention mailing list FAQs
Raven
nyhedsmeddelelse:38865F...@theonering.net...
> Never happened to me. I guess it's because cats can feel my hatred towards
> them, and they tend to avoid me. Good for them.
Now why do you hate *cats*? Did they dump in your CHOKLIT when you were
little?
Personally, I adore mine. Except when they have an accident indoors, a
moment after which time I make them not adore me for a moment. But if you
are allergic to cats, you will not wish to hug me. When I wear clothes, at
any rate. My clothes are full of cat hairs...
Cats are a highly sensible species. The proof, necessary and sufficient,
is that they are fully capable of enjoying themselves *immensely* yet
quietly while and by doing absolutely nothing in front of a warm place, like
my woodstove.
Gavran.
Raven
nyhedsmeddelelse:3885FF89...@indigo.ie...
> > Never happened to me. I guess it's because cats can feel my hatred
> > towards them, and they tend to avoid me. Good for them.
> Hssssssssssssssssssssssssttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Fuggin nasssssty dragons are gonna get a few nasty scratches on their
> tender bits...
Oh come on, she's still just a child. Children *are* ignorant and silly,
remember? (Sorry, Jez, it wanted out.)
Michael, perhaps we should mail her a package of live rats. She opens it
in her room, and a few milliseconds later she has gotten over *that*
particular childhood distaste. <Wicked nasty grin>
Harabanar.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:Ateh4.3277$Q4....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> Here is one example of what I mean. From Paline Baynes' map, and
> an entry in Robert Foster's "The Complete Guide to Middle-earth",
> I know that one of the peninsulas of coastal Eriador, Eryn Vorn,
> was actually forested and populated. What information is there in
> "The History of Middle-earth" (or anywhere else) about these
> people, their history and what became of them in the Fourth Age?
"The native people were fairly numerous and warlike, but they were
forest-dwellers, scattered communities without central leadership.
They were in awe of the Numenoreans, but they did not become hostile
until the tree-felling became devastating. Then they attacked and
ambushed the Numenoreans when they could, and the Numenoreans
treated them as enemies, and became ruthless in their fellings,
giving no thought to husbandry or replanting. The fellings had at
first been along both banks of the Gwathlo, and timber had been
floated down to the haven (Lond Daer); but now the Numenoreans drove
great tracks and roads into the forests northwards and south-wards
from the Gwathlo, and the native folk that survived fled from
Minhiriath into the dark woods of the great Cape of Eryn Vorn, south
of the mouth of the Baranduin, which they dared not cross, even if
they could, for fear of the Elvenfolk. From Enedwaith they took
refuge in the eastern mountains where afterwards was Dunland; they
did not cross the Isen nor take refuge in the great promontory
between Isen and Lefnui that formed the north arm of the Bay of
Belfalas because of the 'Púkel-men', who were a secret and fell
people, tireless and silent hunters, using poisoned darts."
UT, Appendix D: The Port of Lond Daer
Mia Kalogjera
> Now why do you hate *cats*?
Does hatred need a reason?
Anyway, dogs rule. I love dogs. I adore dogs. Cats, yuck.
*** the above is a 100% subjective opinion ***
David Sulger
>Anyway, dogs rule. I love dogs. I adore
>dogs. Cats, yuck.
Everyone knows that dogs are better pets than cats.
--Dave
Raven
> > Now why do you hate *cats*?
> Does hatred need a reason?
My hatreds do. They are few, but my entry in Arky's list makes mention
of one which I am rather serious about.
> Anyway, dogs rule. I love dogs. I adore dogs. Cats, yuck.
I like dogs, but I like cats better. For one thing, you do not have to
walk cats. But it's true that dogs are, analytically, more intelligent.
Cats, of course, are more sensible.
Perhaps we are a parallel to Gimli and Éomer, who had different loves (or
worships) of Elven women. :-)
> *** the above is a 100% subjective opinion ***
Excellent.
Gavran.
Freaksaus
scribbled on a virtual piece of paper::
>Anyway, dogs rule. I love dogs. I adore dogs. Cats, yuck.
Funny, I think cats rule and dogs suck, oh well
>*** the above is a 100% subjective opinion ***
You don't say :-)
Freek
You want the TEUNC, you can't handle the TEUNC
Tony Durran
> Raven wrote:
>
> > Now why do you hate *cats*?
>
> Does hatred need a reason?
>
> Anyway, dogs rule. I love dogs. I adore dogs. Cats, yuck.
>
> *** the above is a 100% subjective opinion ***
It's also 100% wrong.
Besides, dogs smell.
Tony.
--
-We'll put our secret weapon to use!
-Does it rhyme with snuclear?
Tony Durran
> walk cats. But it's true that dogs are, analytically, more intelligent.
Huh?
Tamfiiris
>Raven wrote:
>> walk cats. But it's true that dogs are, analytically, more intelligent.
>Huh?
i would very much like to see evidence, any evidence, for this.
dawgs are *dumb*!
--
Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
...home is behind, the world ahead...
going offline in T - 28 days 11 hrs
Tamfiiris
>> Anyway, dogs rule. I love dogs. I adore dogs. Cats, yuck.
you will see the rongness of your ways some day, Mia...
>> *** the above is a 100% subjective opinion ***
>It's also 100% wrong.
>Besides, dogs smell.
but they're more teuncy, i'll give them that.
db
db
ps: this was important enough to delurk for...
Tamfiiris wrote in message ...
>on one of Tony Durran's pieces of broken glass:
>>Raven wrote:
>
>>> walk cats. But it's true that dogs are, analytically, more intelligent.
>>Huh?
>
>i would very much like to see evidence, any evidence, for this.
>dawgs are *dumb*!
>
>--
>Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
> ...home is behind, the world ahead...
>going offline in T - 28 days 11 hrs
_________
"Mostly harmless"
_________
Pls remove ".NoSpam" from email adres when replying
_________
Mia Kalogjera
>
> on one of Tony Durran's pieces of broken glass:
> >Raven wrote:
>
> >> walk cats. But it's true that dogs are, analytically, more intelligent.
> >Huh?
>
> i would very much like to see evidence, any evidence, for this.
> dawgs are *dumb*!
Actually, though I often refer to my dog as 'silly', he _is_ quite intelligent. Dogs
can be taught many useful things, cats can't be taught anything.
Mia Kalogjera
>
> >> Anyway, dogs rule. I love dogs. I adore dogs. Cats, yuck.
>
> you will see the rongness of your ways some day, Mia...
NEVAH!
Jez, fanatically devoted dog afficionada
Mia Kalogjera
> > *** the above is a 100% subjective opinion ***
>
> It's also 100% wrong.
No, it's just that yours too is 100% subjective. You should be aware of that.
> Besides, dogs smell.
Um... any pet smells if you don't take care of it. I don't know about that 'cats clean
themselves' thing - street cats smell like hell to me.
Huan the hound
>>> walk cats. But it's true that dogs are, analytically, more intelligent.
>>Huh?
>
>i would very much like to see evidence, any evidence, for this.
>dawgs are *dumb*!
>
No, dogs are smart. Smarter than cats.
--
Huan, the hound of Valinor
The battle of Huan and Draugluin was long and fierce. Yet at length
Draugluin escaped, and fleeing back into the tower he died before Sauron's
feet; and as he died he told his master: 'Huan is there!'
Michael O'Neill
>
> Tony Durran wrote:
>
> > > *** the above is a 100% subjective opinion ***
> >
> > It's also 100% wrong.
>
> No, it's just that yours too is 100% subjective. You should be aware of that.
>
> > Besides, dogs smell.
>
> Um... any pet smells if you don't take care of it. I don't know about that 'cats clean
> themselves' thing - street cats smell like hell to me.
So tell me, Mia, why do dogs lick their balls all the time?
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> on one of Michael O'Neill's pieces of broken glass:
> >You *HATE* cats!?
>
> >Hssssssssssssssssssssssssttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >Fuggin nasssssty dragons are gonna get a few nasty scratches on their
> >tender bits...
>
Erhm... so *what* is she then, ehhh?
> most dragons like cats, they actually _are_ like
> cats in many respects.
*nods*
Tails, wings, claws, teeth, mouths, noses, bums: absolutely identical: I
hear they like catfood too...
<snicker>
> how dare you insult my noble race in such a
> manner?
Ummm? *Another* race again?
<looks her up and down, slavering...>
And what are *you* my edible little morslet?
> *gives Onqie a you-are-the-scum-of-the-earth look, then starts
> inspecting her talons.* actually, i couldn't care less.
Ohhh, la vache!
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> skrev i en
> nyhedsmeddelelse:3885FF89...@indigo.ie...
> > > Never happened to me. I guess it's because cats can feel my hatred
> > > towards them, and they tend to avoid me. Good for them.
>
> > Hssssssssssssssssssssssssttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Fuggin nasssssty dragons are gonna get a few nasty scratches on their
> > tender bits...
> remember? (Sorry, Jez, it wanted out.)
> Michael, perhaps we should mail her a package of live rats. She opens it
> in her room, and a few milliseconds later she has gotten over *that*
> particular childhood distaste. <Wicked nasty grin>
You have a nasty, wicked, sly, Machiavellian sense of humour.
You'll be very popular here...
<rummages in the corner looking for a box to put the rats in...>
There you go. You get the job of mailing it to her.
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> Mia Kalogjera <a...@theonering.net> skrev i en
> nyhedsmeddelelse:3887DB...@theonering.net...
>
> > Does hatred need a reason?
> of one which I am rather serious about.
>
> Perhaps we are a parallel to Gimli and Éomer, who had different loves (or
> worships) of Elven women. :-)
<snicker>
And *which* one would you classify as the "dog" in this case...?
...hee hee hee...
M.
RLV
Mia Kalogjera wrote in message <3888E3...@theonering.net>...
>Tamfiiris wrote:
>>
>> on one of Tony Durran's pieces of broken glass:
>> >Raven wrote:
>>
>> >> walk cats. But it's true that dogs are, analytically, more
intelligent.
>>
>> i would very much like to see evidence, any evidence, for this.
>> dawgs are *dumb*!
>
intelligent. Dogs
>can be taught many useful things, cats can't be taught anything.
Which shows that cats are *more* intelligent.
Cats know what they need to know, and learn by themselves what they want to
learn. They don't need to be taught.
You own your dog, your cat owns you.
(which raises the question about the intelligence of cat-owners or
dog-owners)
(db is right; at long last an important debate to delurk the lurkers)
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Call me mead-tongue"
P.S.: I like dogs. I love cats.
Mia Kalogjera
> So tell me, Mia, why do dogs lick their balls all the time?
I dunno. Why do men scratch them?
Mia Kalogjera
> Oh come on, she's still just a child. Children *are* ignorant and silly,
> remember?
> (Sorry, Jez, it wanted out.)
Never mind! It tells more about you than it does about me.
Mia Kalogjera
>
> >Dogs
> >can be taught many useful things, cats can't be taught anything.
>
> Which shows that cats are *more* intelligent.
No, that should be 'stubborn', 'lazy', or something along those lines...
> Cats know what they need to know, and learn by themselves what they want to
> learn. They don't need to be taught.
I should have been more specific: taught things useful for *us*, for instance dogs are
of immense help to disabled people, etc. Ever heard of a cat that gave its life for
its owner, or did something for him in any way?
> You own your dog, your cat owns you.
Exactly. Now, I *really* don't understand people who agree to this.
> (which raises the question about the intelligence of cat-owners or
> dog-owners)
LOL!!
PS. The e-mail I promised is being written, I took a break to browse Usenet, it's
going to be a long and exausting e-mail, methinks... you've been warned! :D
Mia Kalogjera
>
> Tamfiiris wrote:
> > OY! she is not a dragon!
>
> Erhm... so *what* is she then, ehhh?
Nazgul. Bellydancing.
> > most dragons like cats, they actually _are_ like
> > cats in many respects.
Ooo! Cats fly? Create fire? Live in the clouds? Amazing!
I have been blind all my life...
Freaksaus
scribbled on a virtual piece of paper::
>Tamfiiris wrote:
>>
>> on one of Tony Durran's pieces of broken glass:
>> >Raven wrote:
>>
>> >> walk cats. But it's true that dogs are, analytically, more intelligent.
>> >Huh?
>>
>> i would very much like to see evidence, any evidence, for this.
>> dawgs are *dumb*!
>
>Actually, though I often refer to my dog as 'silly', he _is_ quite intelligent. Dogs
>can be taught many useful things, cats can't be taught anything.
Cats can't be taught anything but nontheless my cat is really smart.
Whenever she wants to eat she'll track me down trough the entire house
and won't stop whining until I have given her some food.
They only thing that I find really peculiar is that whenever she must
have food she decides that she wants to go outside after I have put
some food in her bowl. Then whenever she returns she starts eating, oh
well.
Freek
What was, what is and what will be me yet fall into TEUNC
Mia Kalogjera
> Cats can't be taught anything but nontheless my cat is really smart.
>
> Whenever she wants to eat she'll track me down trough the entire house
> and won't stop whining until I have given her some food.
Yeah, I get that every day from my dog.
> What was, what is and what will be me yet fall into TEUNC
A true TEUNC you are! :)
Raven
nyhedsmeddelelse:388845A1...@snowy.kodak.com...
> Besides, dogs smell.
I can agree with that. They actually have an excellent sense of smell.
:-)
Kruka.
Raven
> Jez, fanatically devoted dog afficionada
Oh, don't apply the word 'fanatical' to yourself, Jez. It lumps you with
rabid nationalists and religious fundamentalists and that ilk. I wouldn't
see that happen to a friend.
Voron.
Raven
> > So tell me, Mia, why do dogs lick their balls all the time?
> I dunno. Why do men scratch them?
The answer is the same to both questions: because they can.
Craban.
Raven
> > Michael, perhaps we should mail her a package of live rats. She
> > opens it in her room, and a few milliseconds later she has gotten
> > over *that* particular childhood distaste. <Wicked nasty grin>
> You have a nasty, wicked, sly, Machiavellian sense of humour.
Thank you.
> You'll be very popular here...
In a nasty, wicked, sly, Machiavellian and slightly Gollumese way, I
suppose so.
> <rummages in the corner looking for a box to put the rats in...>
> There you go. You get the job of mailing it to her.
<Finding string, tying string, writing address, putting stamps on> Oh no!
Shite! My cats just got into the box and massacred all the rats! Way to
go, Rettskjegg, Skeivskjegg and Skjeggløs, but just *this* time was not the
right one!
Oh well. It only goes to show how effective they are. Sure you won't
reconsider about cats, Jez? Mine just saved you from a letter-bomb,
containing rats rather than C-4.
Son of Hugin.
Raven
nyhedsmeddelelse:38892B...@theonering.net...
> > >Dogs can be taught many useful things, cats can't be taught anything.
> > Which shows that cats are *more* intelligent.
> No, that should be 'stubborn', 'lazy', or something along those lines...
That should be 'sensible'.
I made the distinction earlier in the thread, and it seems that you are
equating 'sensible' with 'intelligent'. I repeat my opinion: *dogs* are
more intelligent, *cats* are more sensible...
> > Cats know what they need to know, and learn by themselves what they want
> > to learn. They don't need to be taught.
> I should have been more specific: taught things useful for *us*, for
> instance dogs are of immense help to disabled people, etc. Ever
> heard of a cat that gave its life for its owner, or did something for
> him in any way?
I remember a cat giving her life for her friend, at least indirectly. We
had two cats. One got a disease, I don't know the English name for it.
'Kattepest', we call it.
The other cat insisted on licking and otherwise comforting her sick
friend. As a result, the other cat caught the disease too, and both died.
> > You own your dog, your cat owns you.
> Exactly. Now, I *really* don't understand people who agree to this.
Well, you own your dog, the cat is above the concept of 'ownership' and
its place on the scrotum pole (pecking order). Which gives me occasion to
repeat: cats are more *sensible*! :-)
Can you imagine a patriotic cat? I can imagine patriotic dogs.
Gavran.
Raven
> Raven, not noticing just how near teh precipice he was strolling, wrote:
Oh, I was never afraid of heights, just of falling from them. Which, by
the way, made me terrified the first (and so far the last) time I
bungee-jumped, and again the first time I skydived...AAARGHH!!! Few things
as great as hanging safely under canopy at 700 meters, though. I look
forward to becoming able to afford it again...
> > Perhaps we are a parallel to Gimli and Éomer, who had different loves
> > (or worships) of Elven women. :-)
> <snicker>
<snicker yerself>
> And *which* one would you classify as the "dog" in this case...?
Oh, the parallel was only between Jez and me vs. Gimli and Éomer, not
between the object of ours and their worships.
<Raven retreats from the precipice>
Harabanar.
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> I like dogs, but I like cats better. For one thing, you do not have to
>walk cats. But it's true that dogs are, analytically, more intelligent.
>Cats, of course, are more sensible.
> Perhaps we are a parallel to Gimli and Éomer, who had different loves
(or
>worships)
So you claim that Gimli was a cat lover and Éomer was a dog lover. Pray,
what canonical evidence do you have for this? Or is this just one of your
usual Unprovoked Flaming™ Trolls, Corbeau?
Öjevind
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> skrev i en
> nyhedsmeddelelse:38887FE7...@indigo.ie...
>
> > Raven, not noticing just how near teh precipice he was strolling, wrote:
> Oh, I was never afraid of heights, just of falling from them. Which, by
> the way, made me terrified the first (and so far the last) time I
> bungee-jumped, and again the first time I skydived...AAARGHH!!! Few things
> as great as hanging safely under canopy at 700 meters, though. I look
> forward to becoming able to afford it again...
>
>
> > <snicker>
> <snicker yerself>
> > And *which* one would you classify as the "dog" in this case...?
> Oh, the parallel was only between Jez and me vs. Gimli and Éomer, not
> between the object of ours and their worships.
> <Raven retreats from the precipice>
>
> Harabanar.
Hokay, Rover.
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill wrote:
>
> > So tell me, Mia, why do dogs lick their balls all the time?
>
> I dunno. Why do men scratch them?
Because they can.
:)
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> Mia Kalogjera <a...@theonering.net> skrev i en
> nyhedsmeddelelse:38892B...@theonering.net...
>
>
> > I dunno. Why do men scratch them?
>
> Craban.
Swine! That was *my* punchline!
M.
David Sulger
>>Dogs can be taught many useful things,
>>cats can't be taught anything.
>Which shows that cats are *more*
>intelligent. Cats know what they need to
>know, and learn by themselves what they
>want to learn. They don't need to be
>taught.
This is proof of cat's superior intelligence? Pfft! Don't make me
laugh.
Dogs chose to be domesticated way back during the Stone Ages, long
before mankind needed to breed animals for meat or labor. They must
have realized that hanging out with humans meant free meals, and fire
they could lounge by, and keep warm. On the other hand, cats were later
forcibly enslaved by humans, simply for the purpose of killing rodents.
They certainly didn't want to be domesticated. That's why cats are so
arrogant; they do it out of spite. Why do think they just kill a rat
and leave it laying around? It's their way of saying, "I did what you
want, you bastards, now YOU clean it up."
Dogs are more loyal, too. Ever hear of a loyal cat? I never did.
Dogs love their owners. Cats don't love anything. I've never seen a
cat bring its owner a newspaper or pair of slippers.
What about the young versions? Everyone knows that puppies are
cute, but kittens are just scruffy balls of fur. Speaking of furballs,
I've never known a dog to just hack up some piece of unidentified and
undigesested material, especially while I'm trying to eat.
--Dave, pro-dog partisan
David Sulger
>>Which shows that cats are *more*
>>intelligent.
>No, that should be 'stubborn', 'lazy', or
>something along those lines...
How about "arrogant"?
--Dave, pro-dog partisan
R. Vink
David Sulger wrote:
> RLV wrote:
>
> >>Dogs can be taught many useful things,
> >>cats can't be taught anything.
>
> >Which shows that cats are *more*
> >intelligent. Cats know what they need to
> >know, and learn by themselves what they
> >want to learn. They don't need to be
> >taught.
>
> This is proof of cat's superior intelligence? Pfft! Don't make me
> laugh.
>
> Dogs chose to be domesticated way back during the Stone Ages, long
> before mankind needed to breed animals for meat or labor. They must
> have realized that hanging out with humans meant free meals, and fire
> they could lounge by, and keep warm. On the other hand, cats were later
> forcibly enslaved by humans, simply for the purpose of killing rodents.
> They certainly didn't want to be domesticated. That's why cats are so
> arrogant; they do it out of spite. Why do think they just kill a rat
> and leave it laying around? It's their way of saying, "I did what you
> want, you bastards, now YOU clean it up."
They leave it lying around because they aren't hungry. Their humans usually
stuff them with food which is much easier to eat. (Which proves their
intelligence.)
> Dogs are more loyal, too. Ever hear of a loyal cat?
I have. We had one. She jumped to my mothers side once when my mother was
threatened by a dog, and started to spat at the dog - who then turned tail.
She brought one of our other cats a bird when the other cat had a wounded
leg.
> I never did.
> Dogs love their owners. Cats don't love anything. I've never seen a
> cat bring its owner a newspaper or pair of slippers.
That's subordinate behaviour, not love. The dog is below its master in the
hierarchy, that's why it does such things. I doubt if animal behaviour can
be termed love at all, but if it exists, cat's display it, too. Your remarks
only prove you don't know anything about cats.
Renée
--
Homepage: http://people.a2000.nl/nordho00/home.html
RLV
Mia Kalogjera escribió en mensaje <38892B...@theonering.net>...
>RLV wrote:
Now I receive your reply to my post, after I've replied to most of your
comments on my reply to Raven's reply to your reply to my post. You know
what I mean. Do you?
>> You own your dog, your cat owns you.
>
>Exactly. Now, I *really* don't understand people who agree to this.
>
>> (which raises the question about the intelligence of cat-owners or
>> dog-owners)
>
>LOL!!
Yah. :-)
>PS. The e-mail I promised is being written, I took a break to browse
Usenet, it's
>going to be a long and exausting e-mail, methinks... you've been warned! :D
Slurps! Mmmm, already salivating...
I'll expand on it by e-mail, but in case I'm late... good luck with your
semester finals!
RLV
David Sulger escribió en mensaje
<12770-38...@storefull-252.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
RLV wrote:
>>Dogs can be taught many useful things,
>>cats can't be taught anything.
>Which shows that cats are *more*
>intelligent. Cats know what they need to
>know, and learn by themselves what they
>want to learn. They don't need to be
>taught.
This is proof of cat's superior intelligence? Pfft! Don't make me
laugh.
Of course. Knowing what they need to know, learning what they need or want
to learn, and not the silly tricks that somebody else wants they to learn.
What else?
Dogs chose to be domesticated way back during the Stone Ages, long
before mankind needed to breed animals for meat or labor.
And you call this a proof of intelligence?
They must
have realized that hanging out with humans meant free meals, and fire
they could lounge by, and keep warm.
The very same that cats get. And they are not obliged to do anything.
On the other hand, cats were later
forcibly enslaved by humans, simply for the purpose of killing rodents.
They certainly didn't want to be domesticated. That's why cats are so
arrogant; they do it out of spite. Why do think they just kill a rat
and leave it laying around? It's their way of saying, "I did what you
want, you bastards, now YOU clean it up."
Precisely
Dogs are more loyal, too. Ever hear of a loyal cat? I never did.
Dogs love their owners. Cats don't love anything. I've never seen a
cat bring its owner a newspaper or pair of slippers.
Sure, dogs are more loyal. Which is another proof of the greater
intelligence (sensibility, wisdom) of cats. Mind you, would you like to be
obliged to bring somebody slippers and stuff in exchange of food, when you
can get it for free?
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Mia Kalogjera
> Now I receive your reply to my post, after I've replied to most of your
> comments on my reply to Raven's reply to your reply to my post. You know
> what I mean. Do you?
Um... let's dissect this sentence.
You posted, I replied, to which Raven posted a comment, you replied, I comment, you
reply to most of it, and then you recieve my reply to your post. But which post? The
original one, the one after Raven's reply, or the one where you replied to most of my
comments to your post?
This is fun!
Mia Kalogjera
> Sure, dogs are more loyal. Which is another proof of the greater
> intelligence (sensibility, wisdom) of cats. Mind you, would you like to be
> obliged to bring somebody slippers and stuff in exchange of food, when you
> can get it for free?
Which brings us back nicely to your point about cat 'owners'.
If you get a dog, you get a *lot* in return for giving him food and shelter. If you
get a cat, you get nothing like that in return. I really, really don't understand
people who have cats, sorry.
Mia Kalogjera
>>Ever hear of a loyal cat?
>
> I have. We had one. She jumped to my mothers side once when my mother was
> threatened by a dog, and started to spat at the dog - who then turned tail.
My dog was afraid of cats when he was little, now he chases them. *Jez pats Mac*
> That's subordinate behaviour, not love.
No, that's love alright. It proves the canine species amazing EQ.
> I doubt if animal behaviour can
> be termed love at all,
Hm. Well, to me this doubt tells a lot about cats. If you had a dog, you wouldn't
doubt it's unconditioned love.
> Your remarks
> only prove you don't know anything about cats.
Or you about dogs, R. :P
Tamfiiris
> Oh, don't apply the word 'fanatical' to yourself, Jez. It lumps you with
>rabid nationalists and religious fundamentalists and that ilk. I wouldn't
>see that happen to a friend.
tut, tut -- what do you think the F in AFT stands for?
--
Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
...i can feel the distance / getting close...
going offline in T - 27 days 9 hrs
Tamfiiris
>On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:52:59 -0800, Mia Kalogjera <a...@theonering.net>
>scribbled on a virtual piece of paper::
>>Actually, though I often refer to my dog as 'silly', he _is_ quite
>>intelligent. Dogs can be taught many useful things, cats can't be
>>taught anything.
Leo stands on his hindlegs quite impressively whenever someone's offering
him his favourite food.
>Cats can't be taught anything but nontheless my cat is really smart.
they can learn things. they can not be taught to keep away from food when
you're not watching, however. they learn what they *want*. they're smart.
>Whenever she wants to eat she'll track me down trough the entire house
>and won't stop whining until I have given her some food.
mine whines if he wants food, attention, cuddling, or just because he
wants to. and his voice is that of an opera singer's. it can be somewhat
annoying at 5 am...
>They only thing that I find really peculiar is that whenever she must
>have food she decides that she wants to go outside after I have put
>some food in her bowl. Then whenever she returns she starts eating, oh
>well.
i would keep an eye on that caht if i were you. unless you want her to
TAKE OVER THE WORLD, of curse.
--
Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
...far over the misty mountains cold...
Tamfiiris
>If you get a dog, you get a *lot* in return for giving him food and shelter. If you
>get a cat, you get nothing like that in return. I really, really don't understand
>people who have cats, sorry.
have you ever met a cat??
they can give a lot of love, if they choose to. which makes it all the
more precious than dogs' love. };8P
--
Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
...not all those who wander are lost...
Tamfiiris
>Dogs chose to be domesticated way back during the Stone Ages, long
>before mankind needed to breed animals for meat or labor. They must
>have realized that hanging out with humans meant free meals, and fire
>they could lounge by, and keep warm.
erm... were you there? how do you know this?
>On the other hand, cats were later
>forcibly enslaved by humans, simply for the purpose of killing rodents.
you were there too??
>They certainly didn't want to be domesticated.
no, they wanted to be worshipped. seems like it worked out pretty well,
huh?
>That's why cats are so arrogant; they do it out of spite.
no, it's just a natural trait.
>Why do think they just kill a rat and leave it laying around?
because rats are icky. (sorry, softrat! but you know i would never eat
you, either!)
> Dogs are more loyal, too. Ever hear of a loyal cat? I never did.
no, you were too busy hanging out with Ugh and Org.
>Dogs love their owners. Cats don't love anything. I've never seen a
>cat bring its owner a newspaper or pair of slippers.
my boyfriend never brought me slippers either...
> What about the young versions? Everyone knows that puppies are
>cute, but kittens are just scruffy balls of fur.
*guffaw* hah, gotcha! you're trolling! that's it!
>Speaking of furballs,
>I've never known a dog to just hack up some piece of unidentified and
>undigesested material, especially while I'm trying to eat.
no, they prefer the digested thing. ewwwwwww...
>--Dave, pro-dog partisan
dogbrain!
--
Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
...follow, follow stars that leap...
Tamfiiris
>No. Dogs can be dumb, but they always outthink a cat when it really matters.
an example wouldn't be out of the way!
>ps: this was important enough to delurk for...
a question of vital importance. pleased to see you again, dee! how are
things?
--
Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
...i can feel the distance / getting close...
Tamfiiris
>Actually, though I often refer to my dog as 'silly', he _is_ quite intelligent. Dogs
>can be taught many useful things, cats can't be taught anything.
so because you can fuck with their brains, dogs are superior animals? hm.
--
Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
"...you need to unplug, man."
Andrew Wells
>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>
>> So tell me, Mia, why do dogs lick their balls all the time?
>
>I dunno. Why do men scratch them?
Because they itch?
Andrew ...
--
Andrew Wells
Change 10 to 9 to reach me
Mia Kalogjera
> have you ever met a cat??
Yes, many.
> they can give a lot of love, if they choose to. which makes it all the
> more precious than dogs' love. };8P
Um... the above doesn't seem to work.
<Arkymode> Elaborate! </Arkymode>
Mia Kalogjera
> Leo stands on his hindlegs quite impressively whenever someone's offering
> him his favourite food.
Mac *walks* on hind legs if guided by food :)))
> they can learn things. they can not be taught to keep away from food when
> you're not watching, however.
Tell me about it! Mac ate my entire *lunch* on several occasions (if I concentrate on
the telly more than on the plate), and then there are numerous sandwiches, chewing
gums... he even learned to *open* the fridge door to get in! No, I'd never teach him
to do that. Self-taught in opening cupboards and fridges, is Mac.
>they learn what they *want*. they're smart.
See above :P
Jez, pro-dog extremist
Mia Kalogjera
> >No. Dogs can be dumb, but they always outthink a cat when it really matters.
>
> an example wouldn't be out of the way!
Well, to make it very general: where there's smoke, there's fire. The tradition has it
that dogs chase and kill cats, not the other way round. I wonder why...
Mia Kalogjera
>
> on one of David Sulger's pieces of broken glass:
>
> >Dogs chose to be domesticated way back during the Stone Ages, long
> >before mankind needed to breed animals for meat or labor. They must
> >have realized that hanging out with humans meant free meals, and fire
> >they could lounge by, and keep warm.
>
> erm... were you there? how do you know this?
Pay attention, dwagin!: "they must have realised", not "they realised".
> no, they wanted to be worshipped. seems like it worked out pretty well,
> huh?
Egypt, yes. But they also worshipped... bugs! Eeeeyuck! And jackals! How can you trust
people like that?
Iranian Avesta, for instance, mentions dogs in a positive light. Wise people.
> > Dogs are more loyal, too. Ever hear of a loyal cat? I never did.
>
> no, you were too busy hanging out with Ugh and Org.
I must have been there too, then...
> >Dogs love their owners. Cats don't love anything. I've never seen a
> >cat bring its owner a newspaper or pair of slippers.
>
> my boyfriend never brought me slippers either...
Dump him!
> >I've never known a dog to just hack up some piece of unidentified and
> >undigesested material, especially while I'm trying to eat.
>
> no, they prefer the digested thing. ewwwwwww...
? Well, I prefer my dog to act as a vacuum cleaner, if I drop a piece of food, than a
machine for throwing up nasty things.
> dogbrain!
And damn proud of it! Dogs are intelligent.
Mia Kalogjera
> so because you can fuck with their brains, dogs are superior animals? hm.
Nobody fucks with their brains. If we accept that 'theory', it means that parents are
fucking with the brains of their children, teachers with their pupils... learning is
more than that, and I'm not just defending my future position :)
Is a kid who refuses to learn and cooperate more intelligent than the kid who wants to
learn and is emphatic? I doubt it.
R. Vink
Mia Kalogjera wrote:
> R. Vink wrote:
>
> >>Ever hear of a loyal cat?
> >
> > I have. We had one. She jumped to my mothers side once when my mother was
> > threatened by a dog, and started to spat at the dog - who then turned tail.
>
> My dog was afraid of cats when he was little, now he chases them. *Jez pats Mac*
Remind him always to attack from behind. (But he'll probably know that.) *R. sheds
tear for late loyal cat*.
> > That's subordinate behaviour, not love.
>
> No, that's love alright. It proves the canine species amazing EQ.
>
> > I doubt if animal behaviour can
> > be termed love at all,
>
> Hm. Well, to me this doubt tells a lot about cats. If you had a dog, you wouldn't
> doubt it's unconditioned love.
You snipped my remark about cats having it, TOO, if such a thing as animal love
existed . I never denied that if it existed, dogs have it. What I deny is that animal
emotions deserve the name of love. Love is something I reserve love for human beings
(or I would have said the cat who defended my mother acted out of love). It's a
matter of definition, not of having experience with any particular kind of animal or
not. I don't dislike dogs as you dislike cats. I walked my invalid aunt's dogs for
years and took them to the vet. Perhaps I would even like them as much as cats if
only I could get over the smell...
R.
--
Homepage: http://people.a2000.nl/nordho00/home.html
Mia Kalogjera
> What I deny is that animal
> emotions deserve the name of love. Love is something I
> reserve for human beings
Why?
Raven
> > > > So tell me, Mia, why do dogs lick their balls all the time?
> > > I dunno. Why do men scratch them?
> > The answer is the same to both questions: because they can.
> Swine! That was *my* punchline!
Hee hee meow hee!
Perhaps we should not elaborate too much, or this thread will become
*too* tildy.
Hrafn.
Raven
> > >No. Dogs can be dumb, but they always outthink a cat when it really
> > >matters.
> > an example wouldn't be out of the way!
> Well, to make it very general: where there's smoke, there's fire. The
> tradition has it that dogs chase and kill cats, not the other way round.
> I wonder why...
Size. Would *you* want your dog to chase a lynx, or a tiger?
Don't tell me that superiour intelligence is the ability and willingness
to chase and kill.
Gavran.
Raven
> If you get a dog, you get a *lot* in return for giving him food and
> shelter. If you get a cat, you get nothing like that in return. I really,
> really don't understand people who have cats, sorry.
You must have flopped as a cat owner then. :-) *My* cats give me *lotsa*
love. Or whatever. No less than the dogs I have had close experience with.
Craban.
Raven
nyhedsmeddelelse:MPG.12f3cc8dc...@news.online.no...
> > Oh, don't apply the word 'fanatical' to yourself, Jez. It lumps you
> >with rabid nationalists and religious fundamentalists and that ilk.
> >I wouldn't see that happen to a friend.
> tut, tut -- what do you think the F in AFT stands for?
Either fan or faen, but not fanatic.
Quaako.
Raven
nyhedsmeddelelse:hi4i4.4825$Q4.1...@nntpserver.swip.net...
> > I like dogs, but I like cats better. For one thing, you do not have
> >to walk cats. But it's true that dogs are, analytically, more
> >intelligent. Cats, of course, are more sensible.
> > Perhaps we are a parallel to Gimli and Éomer, who had different loves
> >(or worships)
> So you claim that Gimli was a cat lover and Éomer was a dog lover. Pray,
> what canonical evidence do you have for this? Or is this just one of your
> usual Unprovoked FlamingT Trolls, Corbeau?
Now I need to come up with a word for 'troll' in Ajacai, so that I can
call you that. I will not ask for suggestions, because you (pl) don't know
the rules for noun-stems in Ajacai, and besides --- I can see the flamewar
that might erupt. And 'Chowdervale' does not comply with the Ajacai
noun-rules, unfortunately.
Just so long as nobody calls *me* a *swede* lover, I'll be okay.
Aahahahahaha!!!! (One exclamation mark short of insane laughter)
Besides, I don't TradeMark my flames. I copyleft them.
Corbeau.
the softrat
imperfect world: sort of like TEUNCers and MM.
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Ah! But does a half-dead cat have Buddha Nature?
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
cute, but kittens are just scruffy balls of fur. Speaking of furballs,
I've never known a dog to just hack up some piece of unidentified and
undigesested material, especially while I'm trying to eat.
I think the cats mean it nicely. One of my brothers had a cat that was a
really good ratter. And not only that - once it killed a young hare. After
having filled its own belly (something all cats give priority to) it came
staggering (it had gorged itself so that its stomach was quite round, and
you could almost hear it belch) to the outdoors table where we were eating,
and it was carrying what was left of the young hare and dropped it in front
of us. It was kindly meant, and you could see how puzzled the poor little
cat (which was not even grown up at the time) was when my sister-in-law got
up and removed the corpse and threw it in the slop-pail. Here it was
bringing food to the house, and we just laughed and threw it away.
One of my sisters had given the kitten to my brother and sister-in-law.
When she was told the story she felt very proud and exclaimed: "Yes, her
mother is an excellent hunter too!"
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>
>No, dogs are smart. Smarter than cats.
>
>--
>Huan, the hound of Valinor
You are hardly an impartial observer, are, you, Huan?
Öjevind
Mia Kalogjera
> You must have flopped as a cat owner then. :-)
I never even tried, but the family of my best friend had a dog and several cats. When
the dog passed away, they cried for days as if it were a human family member, and
buried him at the pet cemetery. When a cat would die, they just dumped it somewhere.
Cruel, yes. Flopped as cat owners, definitely.
Uncommon, no: another friend has cats now but it's as if she has no pet. On the
contrary, when their dog died a year ago, she told me that was the only time she saw
her father cry. I could go on really, but to me it shows most people who had both cats
and dogs grew more attached to their dogs. :)
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
they could lounge by, and keep warm. On the other hand, cats were later
forcibly enslaved by humans, simply for the purpose of killing rodents.
I do not know how true this is, but I have heard an achaeologist claim that
during the stone age, cats did not dare attack rats because the cats were so
small in those days. They were probably mostly kept for their skins, which
made warm and nice clothing.
Öjevind
Mia Kalogjera
>
> Size.
"Size doesn't matter."
> Would *you* want your dog to chase a lynx, or a tiger?
Actually, my dog - a wee Cocker Spaniel - thinks he's a much bigger, stronger dog and
regularly provokes bulldogs or rotweilers into a fight. I'd guess he should have ended
slaughtered ages ago, but - although there never is a final winner - he gets out of
there having inflicted pain and wounds on his opponent. Amazing li'l pooch :)
> Don't tell me that superiour intelligence is the ability and willingness
> to chase and kill.
Um, I don't think Tamf's post was about intelligence, but who'd remember.
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>Leo stands on his hindlegs quite impressively whenever someone's offering
>him his favourite food.
This proves that a dog is at least as intelligent as the average politician.
>>Cats can't be taught anything but nontheless my cat is really smart.
>
[snip]
>
>mine whines if he wants food, attention, cuddling, or just because he
>wants to. and his voice is that of an opera singer's. it can be somewhat
>annoying at 5 am...
This shows that cats are at least as intelligent as the average film star.
Öjevind
joven
Tony Durran kirjoitti viestissä <38884602...@snowy.kodak.com>...
>
<snip completely everything>
personally, I prefer cats. in case someone was wondering.
carry on,
joven and the cat
RLV
Mia Kalogjera escribió en mensaje <388A52...@theonering.net>...
>Tamfiiris wrote:
>
>> have you ever met a cat??
>
>Yes, many.
>
>> they can give a lot of love, if they choose to. which makes it all the
>> more precious than dogs' love. };8P
>
>Um... the above doesn't seem to work.
><Arkymode> Elaborate! </Arkymode>
Tamf is right.
The point is that dogs are easy, they always love their owner. Gaining their
love has not much merit. Otoh, you've got to earn a cat's love, because if
you are not worthy, he won't love you.
Having a cat is more like having a friend/lover; having a dog is more like
having a slave/subordinate. Of course you can love him (most dog owners do),
but it is not required; he will love you all the same.
>If you get a dog, you get a *lot* in return for giving him food and
shelter. If you
>get a cat, you get nothing like that in return. I really, really don't
understand
>people who have cats, sorry.
When you love somebody, do you do it because you expect something from
him/her? Do you demand from your friends that they bring you your slippers?
Of course, it's great if they do, but they are not required to. Would you
not love Mac if he didn't bring slippers or anything he may do? (In fact,
I've never known a dog that performed such niceties; that's an trait not so
usual in the common pet dog).
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
Paris
> Raven wrote:
>
> > You must have flopped as a cat owner then. :-)
>
> I never even tried, but the family of my best friend had a dog and several
cats. When
> the dog passed away, they cried for days as if it were a human family
member, and
> buried him at the pet cemetery. When a cat would die, they just dumped it
somewhere.
> Cruel, yes. Flopped as cat owners, definitely.
> Uncommon, no: another friend has cats now but it's as if she has no pet.
On the
> contrary, when their dog died a year ago, she told me that was the only
time she saw
> her father cry. I could go on really, but to me it shows most people who
had both cats
> and dogs grew more attached to their dogs. :)
Of course, and vice versa, I imagine: dogs get emotionally attached to their
masters, cats simply see them as food-providers. A dog is a social animal
and regards itself as a member of a flock (the smallest, most insignificant
one); it is loyal, often to the point of altruism. Cats, on the other hand,
simply find it convenient to have a bunch of large people serving food.
Occasionally, of course, it drags in some dead animal to show that it really
appreciate being around, and might consider staying, and even giving a hand
now and then (as long as the big guys keep up the good work).
So, if you appreciate loyalty, self-sacrifice, community and morality, you
like dogs; if you prefer aristocratic aloofness, individualism and personal
integrity you prefer cats.
To quote the immortal poetry of the Pet Shop Boys
I want a dog
A chihuahua [they're homosexual]
When I get back to my small flat
I want to hear somebody bark
Oh
You can get lonely
I don't want a cat
scratching its claws all over my
habitat, giving no love and getting fat
Oh
You can get lonely
I want a dog
RLV
the softrat escribió en mensaje
<2oak8s8i1p7iiahub...@4ax.com>...
>Come, come, ffolks. Cats and dogs both have their place in this
>imperfect world: sort of like TEUNCers and MM.
Mmmm, who's TEUNC and who's MM?
>Ah! But does a half-dead cat have Buddha Nature?
Uh? If his 3 and a half remaining lives are free from their karma...
Now, here is an interesting question. All seven lives of a cat share the
same karma?
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Tilde Power!"
RLV
Mia Kalogjera escribió en mensaje <388A13...@theonering.net>...
>RLV wrote:
>
>> Now I receive your reply to my post, after I've replied to most of your
>> comments on my reply to Raven's reply to your reply to my post. You know
>> what I mean. Do you?
>
>Um... let's dissect this sentence.
>You posted, I replied, to which Raven posted a comment, you replied, I
comment, you
>reply to most of it, and then you recieve my reply to your post. But which
post? The
>original one, the one after Raven's reply, or the one where you replied to
most of my
>comments to your post?
No, no, no. Tamf posted, then you replied to Tamf post, then I replied to
your reply to Tamf post, then you replied to my reply to your reply to Tamf
post, then Raven replied to your reply to my reply to your reply to Tamf
post, but I didn't get your reply to my reply to your reply to Tamf post, so
I replied to Raven's reply to your reply to my reply to your reply to my
reply to Tamf post, and then I received your reply to my reply to your reply
to Tamf post.
Clear, isn't it?
>This is fun!
Yes, and I got it right at first try. Check it. Truthful as if The Prof
himself had written it.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Call me mead-tongue"
RLV
Paris escribió en mensaje <86di51$4g0$1...@merkurius.lu.se>...
>
>Mia Kalogjera <a...@theonering.net> skrev i
>diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:388AB2...@theonering.net...
>> Raven wrote:
>>I could go on really, but to me it shows most people who
>>had both cats
>> and dogs grew more attached to their dogs. :)
I suppose that receiving constand adoration and servitude helps tilt the
balance. But anyway, this says more about the owners than about the cats and
dogs.
>Of course, and vice versa, I imagine: dogs get emotionally attached to
their
>masters, cats simply see them as food-providers. A dog is a social animal
>and regards itself as a member of a flock (the smallest, most insignificant
>one); it is loyal, often to the point of altruism.
True, genetics count.
>Cats, on the other hand,
>simply find it convenient to have a bunch of large people serving food.
>Occasionally, of course, it drags in some dead animal to show that it
really
>appreciate being around, and might consider staying, and even giving a hand
>now and then (as long as the big guys keep up the good work).
It's not just that; cats are also social animals (although most often not as
strongly socialized as canines), and gift-giving and mutual grooming is part
of their social life.
>So, if you appreciate loyalty, self-sacrifice, community and morality, you
>like dogs; if you prefer aristocratic aloofness, individualism and personal
>integrity you prefer cats.
Not exactly. Cats can (and do) show great affection for their "owners". My
cats often follow me around the house, and right now one of them is sleeping
soundlly over a rather uncomfortable stack of books and papers on my
computer-room, next to me, instead of going to a comfy bed/sofa/cushion.
When I leave this and go read a bit, sure she will get up and come to sit
over me and purr like silly.
The difference is that she can perfectly (and sometimes does) ignore me and
go about her own business. A dog would need to show that undying affection.
A cat chooses to.
>To quote the immortal poetry of the Pet Shop Boys
>
>I want a dog
<steuardnip>
>I want a dog
LOL
Well, scratch Pet Shop Boys as cat-people. But I don't know if this speaks
good or bad about cats.
R.L.V.
~~#~~
"Call me Miruvorlamba"
David Sulger
>Would *you* want your dog to chase a
>lynx, or a tiger?
Course not. I'd rather see the big cat be brought down by a pack of
wolves.
Canines tend to be more intelligent than felines because canines are
pack animals, compared to felines which are mostly solitary (lions are a
notable exeption). Researchers have learned that social animals are
often the most intelligent species in their habitats. Cats aren't
stupid, they're smarter than many mammals, but they're simply not as
smart as dogs. Wolves and wild dogs hunt in packs; this requires the
ability to coordinate actions as well as the ability to outthink prey,
which in turn requires greater intelligence.
Dogs make better pets because like humans, they are social animals.
--Dave
David Sulger
>>I've never seen a cat bring its owner a
>>newspaper or pair of slippers.
>my boyfriend never brought me slippers
>either...
Hey, it's not the fault of dogs that you couldn't train him properly!
--Dave
David Sulger
>Is a kid who refuses to learn and
>cooperate more intelligent than the kid
>who wants to learn and is emphatic? I
>doubt it.
They may have more apitude for learning, but since they don't bother,
they don't develop their minds. Only by learning can one achive wisdom.
--Dave
David Sulger
>people who had both cats and dogs grew
>more attached to their dogs.
That's because humans and dogd are better suited for each other than
humans and cats.
--Dave
R. Vink
Mia Kalogjera wrote:
> R. Vink wrote:
>
> > What I deny is that animal
> > emotions deserve the name of love. Love is something I
> > reserve for human beings
>
> Why?
Because my definition of love includes reason.
Renée
--
Homepage: http://people.a2000.nl/nordho00/home.html
R. Vink
David Sulger wrote:
Define `better'. If you like the sound of purring, dogs won't do. Whether
one pet is better than another depends on your own demands and
expectations.
R. Vink
David Sulger wrote:
How then, do you explain that among the pet population there are at
least as many cats as there are dogs? Do you really think all those cat
`owners' are idiots, to take such unsuitable animals into their houses?
Or perhaps it's just that they have other ideas about what they want
from a pet.
Cats are usually more suitable for people who are not around the house
all day. Some dogs that are left alone drive the neighbours crazy with
their non-stop barking and whining. (That's not their fault, by the
way.)
Mia Kalogjera
> Because my definition of love includes reason.
Um...
Tamfiiris
>Tamfiiris wrote:
>> >No. Dogs can be dumb, but they always outthink a cat when it really matters.
>> an example wouldn't be out of the way!
>Well, to make it very general: where there's smoke, there's fire. The tradition has it
>that dogs chase and kill cats, not the other way round. I wonder why...
because dogs are idiots that will chase anything that moves. i mean,
c'mon -- *cars*? cats go for natural prey, which is birds, rodents, and
their human's feet. *snirg*
--
Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
...and there are many paths to tread...
going offline in T - 26 days 12 hrs
Tamfiiris
>> Size.
>"Size doesn't matter."
i heard this story about a gruesome chihuahua... appears it chased cats
around all day long. well whaddya know, one day a cat turned and then
there was no more chihuahua...
>> Would *you* want your dog to chase a lynx, or a tiger?
>Actually, my dog - a wee Cocker Spaniel - thinks he's a much bigger, stronger dog and
>regularly provokes bulldogs or rotweilers into a fight. I'd guess he should have ended
>slaughtered ages ago, but - although there never is a final winner - he gets out of
>there having inflicted pain and wounds on his opponent. Amazing li'l pooch :)
everybody knows cockers are vicious. (not that i hold that against them,
mind). the dog i used to walk would be scared about everything, including
other dogs, sheep, and humans. of course, it was curious at the same
time. walking a dog that wants to go two ways is not easy!
>Um, I don't think Tamf's post was about intelligence, but who'd remember.
Tamf's posts are always about intelligence, baby. *nirg*
Tamfiiris
>Mia Kalogjera escribió en mensaje <388A52...@theonering.net>...
>>Tamfiiris wrote:
>>> they can give a lot of love, if they choose to. which makes it all the
>>> more precious than dogs' love. };8P
>>Um... the above doesn't seem to work.
>><Arkymode> Elaborate! </Arkymode>
*strokes chin slowly*
>Tamf is right.
of curse i am!
>The point is that dogs are easy, they always love their owner. Gaining their
>love has not much merit. Otoh, you've got to earn a cat's love, because if
>you are not worthy, he won't love you.
yes. dogs that are abused will grovel, whimper and stay. cats will leave
at first opportunity. dogs will follow you around out of habit, cats will
search you out if they want companionship.
>Having a cat is more like having a friend/lover; having a dog is more like
>having a slave/subordinate. Of course you can love him (most dog owners do),
>but it is not required; he will love you all the same.
and of course cats are much more sensual than dogs. (gotta earn that
tilde somewhere, wright? };8)
>>If you get a dog, you get a *lot* in return for giving him food and
>>shelter. If you
>>get a cat, you get nothing like that in return. I really, really don't
>>understand
>>people who have cats, sorry.
>When you love somebody, do you do it because you expect something from
>him/her? Do you demand from your friends that they bring you your slippers?
yes i do, as a matter of fact. but only to Oxford. Laurie!
>Of course, it's great if they do, but they are not required to. Would you
>not love Mac if he didn't bring slippers or anything he may do? (In fact,
>I've never known a dog that performed such niceties; that's an trait not so
>usual in the common pet dog).
dogs eat slippers, then they hide them. huh.
--
Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
...not all those who wander are lost...
Tamfiiris
>Tamfiiris wrote:
>> Leo stands on his hindlegs quite impressively whenever someone's offering
>> him his favourite food.
>Mac *walks* on hind legs if guided by food :)))
food is a mighty tool.
>> they can learn things. they can not be taught to keep away from food when
>> you're not watching, however.
>Tell me about it! Mac ate my entire *lunch* on several occasions (if I concentrate on
>the telly more than on the plate), and then there are numerous sandwiches, chewing
>gums... he even learned to *open* the fridge door to get in! No, I'd never teach him
>to do that. Self-taught in opening cupboards and fridges, is Mac.
'e sounds a bit like a cat.
>>they learn what they *want*. they're smart.
>See above :P
see above.
>Jez, pro-dog extremist
well, you can guess what i am... };8)
--
Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
...far over the misty mountains cold...
Tamfiiris
>Tamfiiris wrote:
>> >Dogs chose to be domesticated way back during the Stone Ages, long
>> >before mankind needed to breed animals for meat or labor. They must
>> >have realized that hanging out with humans meant free meals, and fire
>> >they could lounge by, and keep warm.
>> erm... were you there? how do you know this?
>Pay attention, dwagin!: "they must have realised", not "they realised".
"dogs chose to"?
i'd rather say that cats chose. they chose to be associated with humans
because that
>> no, they wanted to be worshipped. seems like it worked out pretty well,
>> huh?
>Egypt, yes. But they also worshipped... bugs! Eeeeyuck! And jackals! How can you trust
>people like that?
i don't trust the egyptians. don't trust all cats either. but they were
still worshipped. and are now too, of course.
>Iranian Avesta, for instance, mentions dogs in a positive light. Wise people.
but did they worship it? who worships a dog?
>> > Dogs are more loyal, too. Ever hear of a loyal cat? I never did.
>> no, you were too busy hanging out with Ugh and Org.
>I must have been there too, then...
so all dog lovers are actually stone age people? you know, that
really makes a lot of sense!
>> my boyfriend never brought me slippers either...
>Dump him!
you know i already did. }:8/
>> >I've never known a dog to just hack up some piece of unidentified and
>> >undigesested material, especially while I'm trying to eat.
>> no, they prefer the digested thing. ewwwwwww...
>? Well, I prefer my dog to act as a vacuum cleaner, if I drop a piece of food, than a
>machine for throwing up nasty things.
but dogs eat... crap.
>> dogbrain!
>And damn proud of it! Dogs are intelligent.
are not!
--
Tamf the yellow dragon (that's my short title)
...leave the northern mountains steep...