HE TOOK THE DOG?!?!?!?!?!?
Carey
part of the survey mission, I cannot accept that HE WOULD TAKE DOWN A DOG!
I could actually accept such a thing in TNG or Voyager, as visiting new
planets had become old hat. But this is one of the first new planets they
had ever surveyed.
This is the kind of behaviour that should have the crew considering the
competence of their leader. No forethought, little preparation. Just
unacceptable.
Carey
*****************
Fear is a reaction
Courage is a decision
Steven
news:gx9x7.235826$j65.58...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
> While I can accept that Archer wanted to go down to an earth-like planet
as
> part of the survey mission, I cannot accept that HE WOULD TAKE DOWN A DOG!
> I could actually accept such a thing in TNG or Voyager, as visiting new
> planets had become old hat. But this is one of the first new planets they
> had ever surveyed.
>
> This is the kind of behaviour that should have the crew considering the
> competence of their leader. No forethought, little preparation. Just
> unacceptable.
>
Why not take the dog? I know people that take their dogs everywhere they
go (that's legal to take a dog in). Since he took his dog for a short
mission (which is how this started) why wouldn't he take it to the planet? I
think that has more to do with character trait than leadership skills.
LL&P,
LtCdr. Steven Fredette
C.O. USS DeGaulle NCC-6365
URL: http://www.prowebsites.net/ussdegaulle
Smiley
>While I can accept that Archer wanted to go down to an earth-like planet as
>part of the survey mission, I cannot accept that HE WOULD TAKE DOWN A DOG!
>I could actually accept such a thing in TNG or Voyager, as visiting new
>planets had become old hat. But this is one of the first new planets they
>had ever surveyed.
>
>This is the kind of behaviour that should have the crew considering the
>competence of their leader. No forethought, little preparation. Just
>unacceptable.
I agree. My thoughts on the matter was that Captain Archer acted very
unprofessionally in this episode. I commented on it in my review as
well.
BTW - most people appreciate it if you warn them of spoilers before
making a comment on an episode. Some people don't want to know
ANYTHING about an episode before they've seen it :)
BTR1701
<ca...@home.com> wrote:
> While I can accept that Archer wanted to go down to an earth-like planet
> as
> part of the survey mission, I cannot accept that HE WOULD TAKE DOWN A
> DOG!
> I could actually accept such a thing in TNG or Voyager, as visiting new
> planets had become old hat. But this is one of the first new planets they
> had ever surveyed.
>
> This is the kind of behaviour that should have the crew considering the
> competence of their leader. No forethought, little preparation. Just
> unacceptable.
Why is it okay for people to visit a new planet but not a dog?
Les Bonser
gx9x7.235826$j65.58...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com, "Carey" <ca...@home.com>
wrote:
> While I can accept that Archer wanted to go down to an earth-like planet as
> part of the survey mission, I cannot accept that HE WOULD TAKE DOWN A DOG!
> I could actually accept such a thing in TNG or Voyager, as visiting new
> planets had become old hat. But this is one of the first new planets they
> had ever surveyed.
>
> This is the kind of behaviour that should have the crew considering the
> competence of their leader. No forethought, little preparation. Just
> unacceptable.
Oh, come on. The dog's gotta lift his leg somewhere....
Honestly, as a dog owner myself, I didn't think it was too out of line. In
fact, I'd be concerned if he didn't take the dog occasionally.
As for forethought and preparation: There's probably a lot "behind the
scenes" we're not seeing in the space of a one hour show. After all, this is
the first episode where we've even seen the rest of the crew. You really
don't expect them to show all the little preparation steps, do you? You
should assume they scanned the planet, went through the pre-flight checklist
on the shuttle, etc.
Smiley
>go (that's legal to take a dog in). Since he took his dog for a short
>mission (which is how this started) why wouldn't he take it to the planet? I
>think that has more to do with character trait than leadership skills.
How about because it's a serious away mission to an unknown planet and
NOT a dog park??
Smiley
Because a dog can't be part of a planetary survey team. Why don't
they just bring a toddler with them and let it run around willy nilly
on every new planet they come across?
BTR1701
(Smiley) wrote:
Because a toddler is incapable of taking care of itself and might be
hurt. An adult dog is perfectly capable of running around on its own.
I'm really not seeing the problem here. So he let his dog run around in
the woods for a while. Why does that get your shorts all in a bunch?
FuzzyHorror
Besides, who would rub the dog down with decontamination gel?
--
FuzzyHorror
Sick Thoughts Inc.
John Galt
>While I can accept that Archer wanted to go down to an earth-like planet as
>part of the survey mission, I cannot accept that HE WOULD TAKE DOWN A DOG!
I think this proves that in the future, there will be no public place
on Earth where dogs are allowed. Notice that he let it run off-leash?
Try doing that in San Francisco, and you'll be arrested.
It would have been funny if Archer had brought along a little plastic
shit-mitt. Or even better, if an ensign were assigned to follow the
dog and clean up the crap. :)
Finnerty
Paradox
Smiley <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote in message
news:3bc534e4...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Yeah, maybe the ringworm in the dogs poop will destroy everything on the
planet and evolve into a super big planet eating monster...
DishDude
Carey wrote:
>
> While I can accept that Archer wanted to go down to an earth-like planet as
> part of the survey mission, I cannot accept that HE WOULD TAKE DOWN A DOG!
> I could actually accept such a thing in TNG or Voyager, as visiting new
> planets had become old hat. But this is one of the first new planets they
> had ever surveyed.
>
> This is the kind of behaviour that should have the crew considering the
> competence of their leader. No forethought, little preparation. Just
> unacceptable.
Say it with me:
It's PRE-FEDERATION!
It's PRE-FEDERATION!
It's PRE-FEDERATION!
It's PRE-FEDERATION!
It's PRE-FEDERATION!
Obviously, landing party/away team protocols have not been completely
established yet, ok? You'd have a more valid nit if you would have
mentioned about ENT calling away teams 'away teams' rather than 'landing
parties', since the term 'away teams' wasn't even coined until TNG.
-Rick
the linuxboy
*rim shot*
- J
"Smiley" <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote in message
news:3bc538c2...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Daniel P. Duffy
trees? ;-)
"Carey" <ca...@home.com> wrote in message
news:gx9x7.235826$j65.58...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Steve T
"BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-A5EFB3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>
> Why is it okay for people to visit a new planet but not a dog?
>
Well people (hopefully) won't be weeing all over a completely alien habitat.
gspence...@ottawa.com
Roof roof roof
.
.
.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 04:49:16 GMT, "Carey" <ca...@home.com> wrote:
Smiley
>hurt. An adult dog is perfectly capable of running around on its own.
>
>I'm really not seeing the problem here. So he let his dog run around in
>the woods for a while. Why does that get your shorts all in a bunch?
I find it hard to believe that you can't get your mind around the
seriousness of an away mission to an unexplored planet. They don't
know anything about the lifeforms on this planet, what if the dog ran
off after some squirrel-like creature that happened to be able to
shoot out poisonous spikes and kill him? Or it's possible that the
dog would be immune to the halucinogenic spores but would run through
the field of flowers, then come back and infect anybody who came close
enough to pet him, thus allowing them to become infected earlier and
giving them less of a chance of survival.
A planetary survey team is for crewmembers who know what they're doing
to study the world - it's not a pleasure visit and definitely not for
dogs.
Do you see Vulcanologists bringing their dogs with them to study a
dangerously active Volcano? Does a seargent bring his dog with him
into a war zone? No, of course not, it's just too dangerous.
Smiley
Not all dogs are good at obeying commands... and not all toddlers will
wildly ignore what they're told :)
Wayne
introducing different diseases.
My memory fails me, but has Trek ever dealt with this in an episode. It
would especially work in ENTERPRISE where I assume some disease must still
remain, at least dormant things that might effect humans.
That was my whole problem with INSURRECTION. The fact that no one seem to
care about the efffect the settlers had on that planet, or on its evolution.
It appeared that it was a planet that might one day support human life (as
was the one last night).
Steve T
"T Block" <tbloc...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:9q4bjo$lc721$1...@ID-89525.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Steve T" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote ...
> > >
> > > Why is it okay for people to visit a new planet but not a dog?
> > >
> >
> > Well people (hopefully) won't be weeing all over a completely alien
habitat.
>
and
> a half?
>
I dunno, catheters? I do know that you want to introduce as little alien
material as possible into the environment. How do you know the environment
isn't a breeding playground for earth microbes? Could be "The Martian
Chronicles" all over again.
Cheers
Steve T
Jim
show how absolutely amateurish the early human explorers were.
Especially, as compared to later Trek contacts with other species and
planets. NOW we know why they had sooooooo many rules and regulations in
the later centuries. What I find interesting is the resentment and ANGER
the Star Fleet personnel have towards the Vulcans.
In article <gx9x7.235826$j65.58...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>,
ca...@home.com says...
Sandoz
Unless
it's just a puppy?
MLindsay
> While I can accept that Archer wanted to go down to an earth-like planet as
> part of the survey mission, I cannot accept that HE WOULD TAKE DOWN A DOG!
> I could actually accept such a thing in TNG or Voyager, as visiting new
> planets had become old hat. But this is one of the first new planets they
> had ever surveyed.
>
> This is the kind of behaviour that should have the crew considering the
> competence of their leader. No forethought, little preparation. Just
> unacceptable.
I dunno. I can't recall exact titles, but I've read a few classic science
fiction tales that made a good case for an exploratory ship having a dog
as more than a mascot. The stories related how dogs have an array of
senses different than humans as well as different instincts.
Yes, a dog might even detect things beyond a "bi-corder" or "uni-corder"
or whatever these early day tricorders are called.
Manny Olds
> Yeah, maybe the ringworm in the dogs poop will destroy everything on the
> planet and evolve into a super big planet eating monster...
Oh, the embarassment.
--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"I think that, if there's one clear theme in "Star Wars," it's that
no one *has* a family. Or not for long." -- John Kensmark
robert w hall
Rob
Smiley <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote in message
news:3bc5a75a...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Steven
news:FJmx7.98298$3d2.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> But, remember, it's only a TV show. Don't take it so seriously..
>
> Rob
Another heathen for the fire ;-)
I.E.Z.
Sandoz <billo...@support.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:3BC5D08F...@support.ucla.edu...
> What kind of dog is that anyway? It looks like a beagle, but alot
smaller.
> Unless
> it's just a puppy?
>
When I was growing up, we had a full-grown beagle who was just about that
size. So I'm not sure this is a puppy, as a lot of people are assuming.
IZ (or maybe Pepper was just a runt, who knows?)
Les Bonser
"Smiley" <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote:
The dog probably has better survival instincts than the rest of the crew.
Maybe they ought to stay on the ship and ONLY send down the dog...
Les Bonser
"Paradox" <l33ta0...@mindspring.com> wrote:
And the monster comes back to haunt them in Season six????
Les Bonser
"Smiley" <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote:
> I find it hard to believe that you can't get your mind around the
> seriousness of an away mission to an unexplored planet. They don't
> know anything about the lifeforms on this planet, what if the dog ran
> off after some squirrel-like creature that happened to be able to
> shoot out poisonous spikes and kill him? Or it's possible that the
> dog would be immune to the halucinogenic spores but would run through
> the field of flowers, then come back and infect anybody who came close
> enough to pet him, thus allowing them to become infected earlier and
> giving them less of a chance of survival.
>
The same dangers are present for the people...
And I find it hard to believe that you can't get your mind around the fact
that they scanned the planet beforehand and had no indication that there was
any danger. Granted, they missed something, but they still considered it
relatively safe.
>Does a seargent bring his dog with him
> into a war zone? No, of course not, it's just too dangerous.
Uh, actually..., dogs have a long and distinguished role as warriors.
Fighting dogs served in the Roman Legions and war dogs served in both WWII
and Vietnam. Many Vietname-era vets owe their lives to dogs alerting them of
enemy ambushes and even dragging their wounded owners out of fighting zones.
Watch "War Dogs" the next time it's shown on the History Channel. Even
today, US military locations are guarded by soldiers with dogs. And what do
they use to search for drugs and explosives in airports: DOGS!
Les Bonser
"Sandoz" <billo...@support.ucla.edu> wrote:
> What kind of dog is that anyway? It looks like a beagle, but alot smaller.
> Unless
> it's just a puppy?
Beagles come in different sizes. According to several breeder websites,
there is such a thing as a Miniature Beagle. Smaller than a Hunting Beagle.
And many dog breeds are being purposely breed smaller for apartment living.
I'm waiting for a toy sized Labrador Retriever or teacup Beagle myself. I
love my toy poodles, but I'd also like to have smaller versions of my other
favorite breeds.
William Travis
planet is earthlike and nothing dangerous has been scanned in the air, water
or plants.
The dog is well trained and will not get lost. Sheesh it probably has a
tracker on the collar, hell I say strap a scanner on the pup and let him
run, betcha he explores a LOT more ground than the crew does...
"Carey" <ca...@home.com> wrote in message
news:gx9x7.235826$j65.58...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
DishDude
MLindsay wrote:
> Yes, a dog might even detect things beyond a "bi-corder" or "uni-corder"
> or whatever these early day tricorders are called.
So far, they're only called "scanners". The phasers aren't even called
'phasers', but rather 'phase pistols'.
So far they've been pretty consistant with 'dumbing down' the names for
their hardware - cool!
-Rick
Smiley
>
>And I find it hard to believe that you can't get your mind around the fact
>that they scanned the planet beforehand and had no indication that there was
>any danger. Granted, they missed something, but they still considered it
>relatively safe.
They did a perfunctory scan, they still knew very little about the
planet. Therefore, they did NOT know that it was relatively safe,
they did not know even that it was safe AT ALL.
>Uh, actually..., dogs have a long and distinguished role as warriors.
>Fighting dogs served in the Roman Legions and war dogs served in both WWII
>and Vietnam. Many Vietname-era vets owe their lives to dogs alerting them of
>enemy ambushes and even dragging their wounded owners out of fighting zones.
>Watch "War Dogs" the next time it's shown on the History Channel. Even
>today, US military locations are guarded by soldiers with dogs. And what do
>they use to search for drugs and explosives in airports: DOGS!
One distinction - in each of those examples the dogs were trained to
perform specific tasks to be useful and even make important
contributions to the efforts of Humans. I don't know about you, but I
never got any indication that Porthos was trained in any way for
planetary survey work.
When I used the example of a seargeant bringing his dog into a war
zone, I meant his PET dog.
None of your arguments are valid my friend, why don't you just concede
the point?
Smiley
<robert...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>But, remember, it's only a TV show. Don't take it so seriously..
I think you've got the wrong impression. I'm not taking this
seriously at all, I think it's a relatively minor point, and in no way
caused me to lose interest in the episode.
While it is a minor point though, it IS one worth mentioning. If
somebody wants to disagree with that point I don't think it's going
too far to back up my claims. Do you?
Smiley
>Maybe they ought to stay on the ship and ONLY send down the dog...
NOW you're just trying to be funny! :)
squirts_the_ejac...@hotmail.com
>
> Smiley <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote in message
> news:3bc534e4...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> > > Why not take the dog? I know people that take their dogs everywhere
> they
> > >go (that's legal to take a dog in). Since he took his dog for a short
> > >mission (which is how this started) why wouldn't he take it to the
> planet? I
> > >think that has more to do with character trait than leadership skills.
> >
> > How about because it's a serious away mission to an unknown planet and
> > NOT a dog park??
>
> Yeah, maybe the ringworm in the dogs poop will destroy everything on the
> planet and evolve into a super big planet eating monster...
>
dog poop run wild plot. Eventually Portho's dog poop will
evolve (not into a super big planet eating monster), but instead
it will become the black tar which kills off Tasha Yar.
squirts_the_ejac...@hotmail.com
>
>
> Smiley wrote:
> >
> > >Why is it okay for people to visit a new planet but not a dog?
> >
> > Because a dog can't be part of a planetary survey team. Why don't
> > they just bring a toddler with them and let it run around willy nilly
> > on every new planet they come across?
>
A groundhog?
mike....@pobox.com
>
> >While I can accept that Archer wanted to go down to an earth-like planet as
> >part of the survey mission, I cannot accept that HE WOULD TAKE DOWN A DOG!
>
> on Earth where dogs are allowed. Notice that he let it run off-leash?
> Try doing that in San Francisco, and you'll be arrested.
>
> It would have been funny if Archer had brought along a little plastic
> shit-mitt. Or even better, if an ensign were assigned to follow the
Ok, someone owes me a new keyboard. I have been a dog owner off and on
since I was 12 and have never heard the term shit-mitt. My computer
really didn't need me reading it for the first time whilst drinking
a soda.
gspence...@ottawa.com
song has been in my head ever since.
gspence...@ottawa.com
planet. It is a TV show. Cute moments like this makes me smile.
Always wondered what happened to dogs in the future. You don't see any
pets in the future except Data's cat Spot.
Les Bonser
"Smiley" <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote:
>
> When I used the example of a seargeant bringing his dog into a war
> zone, I meant his PET dog.
You didn't say that...
>
> None of your arguments are valid my friend, why don't you just concede
> the point?
You don't know me from Adam, so that hardly qualifies us as friends.
I'm not going to concede the point because as far as I'm concerned you're an
idiot. #1, it's just a tv show, IT AIN"T REAL. So get over it. #2, *if* it
was real, these people would be spending years in space away from family and
friends. I wouldn't begrudge Archer for bringing his dog as a little
reminder of home. #3, given the seemingly benign surroundings of the planet,
I don't see anything that precludes bringing the dog. And other people in
this thread have the same opinion. You're outnumbered. Accept it.
Les Bonser
"Smiley" <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote:
Did I succeed???
Les Bonser
"gspence...@ottawa.com" <gspence...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> Come on. Have a little fun. It's not like he really exploring a real
> planet. It is a TV show. Cute moments like this makes me smile.
I agree! At my house, we now call "Enterprise" by its rightful name: "The
Porthos Show." And my dogs get treats every time Porthos makes an appearance
on-screen!
>
> Always wondered what happened to dogs in the future. You don't see any
> pets in the future except Data's cat Spot.
And tribbles. Don't forget the tribbles.
(Although some could claim that Rand was Kirk's pet...)
BTR1701
ptfcstoes1jkqvckq...@4ax.com,
"gspence...@ottawa.com" <gspence...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> > Always wondered what happened to dogs in the future. You don't see any
> > pets in the future except Data's cat Spot.
Not true. There was Picard's fish and there was the episode with all the
little Golden Retriever puppies in the day care center on the Enterprise.
BTR1701
ptfcstoes1jkqvckq...@4ax.com,
"gspence...@ottawa.com" <gspence...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> > Always wondered what happened to dogs in the future. You don't see any
> > pets in the future except Data's cat Spot.
Also, don't forget Janeway's dog. Wasn't on the ship but she had
pictures of it.
David B.
>
> In article <3bc538c2...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, gu...@intrasof.com
> (Smiley) wrote:
>
> > >Why is it okay for people to visit a new planet but not a dog?
> >
> > Because a dog can't be part of a planetary survey team. Why don't
> > they just bring a toddler with them and let it run around willy nilly
> > on every new planet they come across?
>
> hurt. An adult dog is perfectly capable of running around on its own.
>
> I'm really not seeing the problem here. So he let his dog run around in
> the woods for a while. Why does that get your shorts all in a bunch?
Maybe they're dog haters?
Tejay Schwartz
gspence...@ottawa.com
wrote:
I forgot about that episode with the Retriever. Thanks for reminding
me.
gspence...@ottawa.com
<lbo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 10/11/01 5:56 PM, in article ptfcstoes1jkqvckq...@4ax.com,
>"gspence...@ottawa.com" <gspence...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>
>> Come on. Have a little fun. It's not like he really exploring a real
>> planet. It is a TV show. Cute moments like this makes me smile.
>
>I agree! At my house, we now call "Enterprise" by its rightful name: "The
>Porthos Show." And my dogs get treats every time Porthos makes an appearance
>on-screen!
Cute! I'll start doing that with my pups too.
>
>>
>> Always wondered what happened to dogs in the future. You don't see any
>> pets in the future except Data's cat Spot.
>
>And tribbles. Don't forget the tribbles.
I meant pets from Earth. But again why aren't there more pets on
Enterprise-D. You'd think they would for a ship with families on
board. I guess Picard had hard enough time with kids let not kid
ourselves over his reaction to a dog running around his ship.
Carey
crew are amateurs in exploration, I cannot believe that the Captain is that
amateurish.
Then again, I could never understand how the Voyager crew did not space
Janeway.
Carey
*****************
Fear is a reaction
Courage is a decision
<gspence...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:ptfcstoes1jkqvckq...@4ax.com...
Tejay Schwartz
Jim
In article <9706-3BC...@storefull-244.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
bermuda...@webtv.net says...
gspence...@ottawa.com
exploration and military defence and they have families with children
on board. Give me a break with your over-analysis of the series
already.
gspence...@ottawa.com
today for technology have use are not using their original names.
Relax. This is *before* Kirk and company. The 'phase pistols' will
soon be called phaser. It is a new technology, nicknames will catch
on.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:39:59 GMT, DishDude <dis...@ptdprolog.net>
wrote:
Smiley
>> zone, I meant his PET dog.
>
>You didn't say that...
That should have been fairly obvious. Did you miss the fact that I
was clearly comparing those situations to Captain Archer and his PET
dog Porthos?
>You don't know me from Adam, so that hardly qualifies us as friends.
WHOA! Where did all this hostility come from?
>I'm not going to concede the point because as far as I'm concerned you're an
>idiot. #1, it's just a tv show, IT AIN"T REAL. So get over it.
Okay, maybe you should take a step back and look at what you're
saying. We've had a disagreement here, but up until now I felt that
it was going along in a civilized manner.
Personally, I'm not that concerned about the situation with the dog.
I think it's a minor point, but also thought it bore mentioning - when
you disagreed with me I felt the need to back up my side of this.
There's no reason to get nasty about it.
I can handle a little heated argument, but now you've brought it to
the point of namecalling, that's never good for a serious debate.
>#2, *if* it
>was real, these people would be spending years in space away from family and
>friends. I wouldn't begrudge Archer for bringing his dog as a little
>reminder of home.
Neither do I. I think Porthos is an interesting addition to the show.
Some people are wondering where the little guy goes to the bathroom -
an interesting thought but I'm sure Captain Archer's figured out some
clever solution.
You're assuming that I have some big complaint about Porthos, but I
really don't. I just thought - and I hold to that opinion - that
bringing Porthos down to the planet was unprofessional. It didn't
ruin the show for me, I just thought it bore mentioning.
If you or anybody else wants to disagree with me, fine, I'm happy to
debate the point. I don't see anything wrong with defending my views.
>#3, given the seemingly benign surroundings of the planet,
>I don't see anything that precludes bringing the dog.
The fact that exploring a new unknown planet is extremely dangerous
precludes bringing a dog.
>And other people in
>this thread have the same opinion. You're outnumbered. Accept it.
I don't think so, I've seen many other people on this newsgroup who
share this opinion with me, now you're just making things up that
aren't true.
There are also people who share your view, but I'm definitely not in
the minority here. In any case, that's beside the point. It doesn't
matter how much backing EITHER of us has on this subject. You can't
debate an issue by saying "It's true because all my friends say so!"
Do you want to have a serious debate about this or not? If all you
want is a flame war then find somebody else.
Smiley
>>> Maybe they ought to stay on the ship and ONLY send down the dog...
>>
>> NOW you're just trying to be funny! :)
>
>Did I succeed???
>
mike....@pobox.com
zool
> crew are amateurs in exploration, I cannot believe that the Captain is
that
> amateurish.
>
> Then again, I could never understand how the Voyager crew did not space
> Janeway.
>
> Carey
Amen. On the other hand it least Janeway left Her dog
home!
Zool
Brad Filippone
: On 10/11/01 12:54 AM, in article 9q3jf2$ljiks$1...@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de,
: "Paradox" <l33ta0...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: >
: > Smiley <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote in message
: > news:3bc534e4...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
: >>> Why not take the dog? I know people that take their dogs everywhere
: > they
: >>> go (that's legal to take a dog in). Since he took his dog for a short
: >>> mission (which is how this started) why wouldn't he take it to the
: > planet? I
: >>> think that has more to do with character trait than leadership skills.
: >>
: >> How about because it's a serious away mission to an unknown planet and
: >> NOT a dog park??
: >
: > Yeah, maybe the ringworm in the dogs poop will destroy everything on the
: > planet and evolve into a super big planet eating monster...
: >
: >
: And the monster comes back to haunt them in Season six????
We have an episode!! Write to Braga now! :)
Brad
Les Bonser
"gspence...@ottawa.com" <gspence...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> Happy ST:TNG. Enterprise-E is the Federation's flagship for
> exploration and military defence and they have families with children
> on board. Give me a break with your over-analysis of the series
> already.
Enterprise-D had families; don't know that we've seen enough of Enterprise-E
to know for sure.
Les Bonser
"Smiley" <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote:
> Personally, I'm not that concerned about the situation with the dog.
> I think it's a minor point, but also thought it bore mentioning - when
> you disagreed with me I felt the need to back up my side of this.
> There's no reason to get nasty about it.
If it's such a small point, then drop it.
> Do you want to have a serious debate about this or not? If all you
> want is a flame war then find somebody else.
As evidenced by some of my other posts, I'd say no. What I want is fun
discussion with other people who enjoy this show. I really don't think this
newsgroup is for serious debate. If that's what you want, you need to get
over to another newsgroup.
Merrick Baldelli
<the...@pop.charter.net> wrote:
>Why not take the dog? The Enterprise has decontamination technology. The
>planet is earthlike and nothing dangerous has been scanned in the air, water
>or plants.
That psychotropic with the stray electron isn't dangerous?
(*convulses at the thought he actually used the technobabble*)
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 ` UIN#: 788639
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/
/ /
Merrick Baldelli
<lbo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The dog probably has better survival instincts than the rest of the crew.
>Maybe they ought to stay on the ship and ONLY send down the dog...
PETA would burn you at the stake like the Spanish Inquisition
for even suggesting this.
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>I think the point of taking the dog is that the producers are trying to
>show how absolutely amateurish the early human explorers were.
So far, they're succeeding, admirably.
>Especially, as compared to later Trek contacts with other species and
>planets. NOW we know why they had sooooooo many rules and regulations in
>the later centuries. What I find interesting is the resentment and ANGER
>the Star Fleet personnel have towards the Vulcans.
Which is contrived and is covered quite admirably in the first
part of your observations that I quoted out separately.
Merrick Baldelli
>Then again, I could never understand how the Voyager crew did not space
>Janeway.
The writers prevented it.
Smiley
>discussion with other people who enjoy this show. I really don't think this
>newsgroup is for serious debate. If that's what you want, you need to get
>over to another newsgroup.
Oh? This newsgroup isn't for serious debates? Gee, I wonder why
there are so many around here then?
This newsgroup is for people to express their opinions and discuss
Star Trek Enterprise. Some people will have different opinions,
that's only natural. Do you expect them to just ignore one another?
I'll debate in this newsgroup as long as I want to, that's what it's
here for. If somebody disagrees with me, I'm going to back up my side
of the argument. As long as things stay civilized and don't turn into
a flame war, I'm pretty sure that the creators of this newsgroup are
fine with that.
First Fallen
crew.
>> >Maybe they ought to stay on the ship and ONLY send down the dog...
>>
>> PETA would burn you at the stake like the Spanish Inquisition
>> for even suggesting this.
>
My friend's wife would rather see a person die, than an animal. We have the
most interesting arguments.
Les Bonser
"Smiley" <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote:
>> As evidenced by some of my other posts, I'd say no. What I want is fun
>> discussion with other people who enjoy this show. I really don't think this
>> newsgroup is for serious debate. If that's what you want, you need to get
>> over to another newsgroup.
>
> Oh? This newsgroup isn't for serious debates? Gee, I wonder why
> there are so many around here then?
So far, we've discussed the butterfly eating "strippers" from the first
episode, the decontamination scene and nipple shots from the first episode,
and the role of the dog in the crew...not what I'd consider serious topics.
>
> This newsgroup is for people to express their opinions and discuss
> Star Trek Enterprise. Some people will have different opinions,
> that's only natural. Do you expect them to just ignore one another?
Don't ignore anyone. Just have a sense of humor about it...it is a tv show
after all. Not a life and death serious topic.
>
> I'll debate in this newsgroup as long as I want to, that's what it's
> here for. If somebody disagrees with me, I'm going to back up my side
> of the argument. As long as things stay civilized and don't turn into
> a flame war, I'm pretty sure that the creators of this newsgroup are
> fine with that.
Now I'd say you're taking yourself slight too seriously. Tone it down,
loosen up, and have fun.
Steven
news:B7ECB9A2.171A%lbo...@worldnet.att.net...
> it is a tv show
> after all. Not a life and death serious topic.
Another heathen for the fire. "Ta" you got the fire started yet? ;-)
LL&P,
LtCdr. Steven Fredette
C.O. USS DeGaulle NCC-6365
URL: http://www.prowebsites.net/ussdegaulle
Smiley
>episode, the decontamination scene and nipple shots from the first episode,
>and the role of the dog in the crew...not what I'd consider serious topics.
Maybe not serious topics, but interesting topics for serious debates
nontheless.
>Don't ignore anyone. Just have a sense of humor about it...it is a tv show
>after all. Not a life and death serious topic.
I've never taken any of this as a life and death serious topic, where
the heck did you get that idea? I'm not debating because I want to
berate anybody who feels differently from me. I'm debating because I
want to express my opinions and interact with others.
>Now I'd say you're taking yourself slight too seriously. Tone it down,
>loosen up, and have fun.
You don't consider debates fun? Why do you think people form debating
teams? I love a good debate, there's nothing wrong with people of
different opinions giving arguments and counter-arguments to prove
their points.
It's not that I take the topic extremely seriously, it's just that I
enjoy a good debate with somebody who disagrees with me. If anything
you're the one who proved that you're taking this way too seriously by
calling me an idiot.
PaulW
> > Why not take the dog? I know people that take their dogs everywhere they
> >go (that's legal to take a dog in). Since he took his dog for a short
> >mission (which is how this started)
I've been wondering how short. Was it supposed to be like " ...a
three hour tour, a three hour tour"?
PaulW
Wheeljak
>> Why not take the dog? I know people that take their dogs everywhere they
>>go (that's legal to take a dog in). Since he took his dog for a short
>>mission (which is how this started) why wouldn't he take it to the planet? I
>>think that has more to do with character trait than leadership skills.
>
>How about because it's a serious away mission to an unknown planet and
>NOT a dog park??
Inadvertantly, you just solved the mystery of Starfleet crapping
procedure. There are no toilets on the Enterprise; they all just hold
it until they are assigned an away mission!
Class M is code for "Men's Room".
-from the pen of Wheeljak
Les Bonser
"Smiley" <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote:
>> So far, we've discussed the butterfly eating "strippers" from the first
>> episode, the decontamination scene and nipple shots from the first episode,
>> and the role of the dog in the crew...not what I'd consider serious topics.
>
> Maybe not serious topics, but interesting topics for serious debates
> nontheless.
>
>> Don't ignore anyone. Just have a sense of humor about it...it is a tv show
>> after all. Not a life and death serious topic.
>
> I've never taken any of this as a life and death serious topic, where
> the heck did you get that idea? I'm not debating because I want to
> berate anybody who feels differently from me. I'm debating because I
> want to express my opinions and interact with others.
I got the idea that it was a serious topic from you:
From Wednesday> How about because it's a *serious* away mission to an
unknown planet and NOT a dog park??
From Thursday> I find it hard to believe that you can't get your mind around
the *seriousness* of an away mission to an unexplored planet. They don't
From Friday> Oh? This newsgroup isn't for *serious* debates? Gee, I wonder
why there are so many around here then?
>
>> Now I'd say you're taking yourself slight too seriously. Tone it down,
>> loosen up, and have fun.
>
> You don't consider debates fun? Why do you think people form debating
> teams? I love a good debate, there's nothing wrong with people of
> different opinions giving arguments and counter-arguments to prove
> their points.
Debates are okay, but this thread very quickly moved away from the merits of
taking a dog on an away mission into personal attacks of people's opinions.
>
> It's not that I take the topic extremely seriously, it's just that I
> enjoy a good debate with somebody who disagrees with me. If anything
> you're the one who proved that you're taking this way too seriously by
> calling me an idiot.
No. You misunderstood the context and took a casual comment as a personal
attack. I'm at fault only for forgetting the :-) after "idiot." You're at
fault for not understanding the tone of my words and all my posts
collectively. Believe me, if I truly thought you were an idiot, I would
never have responded in the first place. It's not worth my time.
If you truly wanted debate, why did you respond to my serious counterpoints
with> None of your arguments are valid my friend, why don't you just concede
the point?
You're practically inviting me to proclaim you the winner of the debate. I
refuse to do that because you haven't won. You profess to want a debate, but
you avoid anyone that provides commentary.
I still believe it's okay for the captain to have his dog and take him where
he pleases. There's an old naval tradition: "Captain's Privilege." Once the
absolute command of a ship is attained, captains have always taken an extra
portion of bounty, indulged personal eccentricities, and enjoyed things the
common sailor has not. The Captain's table always has the best food and the
best spirits.
As a dog owner myself, I can tell you that I'd do the same. Regardless of
the risk. The companionship of a good dog is worth the potential loss of the
animal in an accident or other calamity. Enough said.
Smiley
>
>From Wednesday> How about because it's a *serious* away mission to an
>unknown planet and NOT a dog park??
>
>From Thursday> I find it hard to believe that you can't get your mind around
>the *seriousness* of an away mission to an unexplored planet. They don't
>
>From Friday> Oh? This newsgroup isn't for *serious* debates? Gee, I wonder
>why there are so many around here then?
Okay, I've claimed that the idea of an away mission to an unknown
planet is serious. I've also claimed that the debate is serious. I
haven't said that my complaint was serious. The fact is that it was
only an observation, but one which I was willing to back up in a
serious debate.
>Debates are okay, but this thread very quickly moved away from the merits of
>taking a dog on an away mission into personal attacks of people's opinions.
I never made any personal attacks on you. If you think I have maybe
you should go back and read what I really said. I may have criticized
your OPINIONS, but that's what debating is all about. I make an
effort not to make personal attacks in these discussions.
>No. You misunderstood the context and took a casual comment as a personal
>attack. I'm at fault only for forgetting the :-) after "idiot." You're at
>fault for not understanding the tone of my words and all my posts
>collectively. Believe me, if I truly thought you were an idiot, I would
>never have responded in the first place. It's not worth my time.
I misunderstood the tone of your words? I don't think that anybody
can blame me for reading hostility into that message, it looked to me
like you went out of your way to show your contempt. I even commented
that your message seemed a little too hostile, and you didn't bother
to correct me.
I'm sorry, but if I misunderstood than you're at least partly to
blame. You could have worded that better.
>If you truly wanted debate, why did you respond to my serious counterpoints
>with> None of your arguments are valid my friend, why don't you just concede
>the point?
It's nice for debates to have a winner, isn't it? Okay, so I was a
little condescending, but that's not out of place in a serious debate.
I don't mind giving and taking a little heat, as long as it doesn't go
too far.
>You're practically inviting me to proclaim you the winner of the debate. I
>refuse to do that because you haven't won. You profess to want a debate, but
>you avoid anyone that provides commentary.
Really? How have I been ignoring people? I invited you to proclaim
me the winner because I figured my points were more valid than yours.
Since we have no judge or moderator, the only way to win an argument
is for one of us to concede.
In no way does that equate to ignoring you.
>I still believe it's okay for the captain to have his dog and take him where
>he pleases. There's an old naval tradition: "Captain's Privilege." Once the
>absolute command of a ship is attained, captains have always taken an extra
>portion of bounty, indulged personal eccentricities, and enjoyed things the
>common sailor has not. The Captain's table always has the best food and the
>best spirits.
Just because the captain CAN do it doesn't mean that he SHOULD. I
still say it was a bad decision.
>As a dog owner myself, I can tell you that I'd do the same. Regardless of
>the risk. The companionship of a good dog is worth the potential loss of the
>animal in an accident or other calamity. Enough said.
My first dog got run over by a car. The second one died a couple of
years back, I was very protective of her. Dogs don't generally have
the kind of common sense us humans do you know, it's foolish to put
one into a dangerous situation that they haven't been trained to deal
with and expect that they'll come through all right.
I have to tell you, if I was Captain Archer, and if Porthos had eaten
some native insect or something that killed him, I'd never forgive
myself.
Bringing the dog on the ship for companionship is one thing, I don't
mind that. But bringing him down to the planet was foolish. I don't
see how you can claim that Porthos' companionship on a planetary
survey was worth his potential death.
James Kratzer
1.) Dogs belong with their owners (as opposed to cats, who take their humans
with them wherever THEY go).
2.) Dogs are incredibly loyal little slaves who have all the common sense of
some Trekkies I know.
3.) Archer should NOT have taken Porthos with him until he KNEW Porthos had
at least 50-50 odds of coming back alive. That beagle must be part cat; he
has at least 9 lives, and spends them profligately (is that a word? I think
so).
4.) I used to wonder why so many people kept telling me about 'newsgroups'
being so interesting. Now I know; DAMN, but we have some fun fights in here,
don't we?
People keep pets for different reasons. Some pets are kept for work
relationships (seeing eye dogs, guard dogs, etc.). For a good example of
where E could go with Porthos, get hold of Eric Frank Russell's two stories,
Allamagoosa and Into Your Tent; they are CLASSIC SF, and great reads.
They're also funnier than shit (but then, most things are).
See ya 'round the con.
Jim Kratzer
The Mad Yank
"Beamie, Scott me up!"
Ya know, he never DID say that.
J. Juls
> Always wondered what happened to dogs in the future. You don't see any
> pets in the future except Data's cat Spot.
>
>
Nope, Amanda the Q girl made puppies. They also had normal puppies on the
episode with Troi's space-baby. And Q turned Bev into a golden retriever.
Aquiel had a dog, too.
Julie
J. Juls
<gspence...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:qvrcstkq2i80rauqt...@4ax.com...
> Happy ST:TNG. Enterprise-E is the Federation's flagship for
> exploration and military defence and they have families with children
> on board. Give me a break with your over-analysis of the series
> already.
>
I don't believe there were any children on the Enterprise-E. There's
nothing in canon either way, but I didn't see any children among the Borg
recruits.
Julie
J. Juls
> Some people are wondering where the little guy goes to the bathroom -
> an interesting thought but I'm sure Captain Archer's figured out some
> clever solution.
>
The transporter's probably good enough for dog excrement.
Julie
Smiley
>> Some people are wondering where the little guy goes to the bathroom -
>> an interesting thought but I'm sure Captain Archer's figured out some
>> clever solution.
>>
>
>The transporter's probably good enough for dog excrement.
I was thinking some newspaper in the corner... but now that you
mention it, just beaming it out into space sounds like an interesting
solution. I wonder if that's how they get rid of their garbage too?
Smiley
>People keep pets for different reasons. Some pets are kept for work
>relationships (seeing eye dogs, guard dogs, etc.). For a good example of
>where E could go with Porthos, get hold of Eric Frank Russell's two stories,
>Allamagoosa and Into Your Tent; they are CLASSIC SF, and great reads.
>They're also funnier than shit (but then, most things are).
I've read Alamagoosa. Interesting story, though I couldn't get my
mind around why they'd list the dog as Inventory. Didn't they say
earlier in the story that the dog was part of the crew? Wouldn't the
poor thing be on the crew manifold instead?
I agree though, it was a good read :)
Smiley
I think he meant the Enterprise-D - which of course did have children,
for example Wesley Crusher. A few episodes also featured children, as
well in the series premier Captain Picard explicitely says that the
ship has children on board. So there's no doubt that there were
children on board the Enterprise-D.
Les Bonser
"Smiley" <gu...@intrasof.com> wrote:
>
> Really? How have I been ignoring people? I invited you to proclaim
> me the winner because I figured my points were more valid than yours.
> Since we have no judge or moderator, the only way to win an argument
> is for one of us to concede.
>
You just can't accept that anyone else holds their opinions as strongly as
you do yours. Your points weren't any more valid than mine, simply
different. There's no way this can be decided.
>
>> I still believe it's okay for the captain to have his dog and take him where
>> he pleases. There's an old naval tradition: "Captain's Privilege." Once the
>> absolute command of a ship is attained, captains have always taken an extra
>> portion of bounty, indulged personal eccentricities, and enjoyed things the
>> common sailor has not. The Captain's table always has the best food and the
>> best spirits.
>
> Just because the captain CAN do it doesn't mean that he SHOULD. I
> still say it was a bad decision.
Once again, it's merely your opinion. Others have different opinions...
>
>> As a dog owner myself, I can tell you that I'd do the same. Regardless of
>> the risk. The companionship of a good dog is worth the potential loss of the
>> animal in an accident or other calamity. Enough said.
>
> My first dog got run over by a car. The second one died a couple of
> years back, I was very protective of her. Dogs don't generally have
I'm sorry to hear this. In the words of the Vulcan's "I grieve with thee."
> the kind of common sense us humans do you know, it's foolish to put
> one into a dangerous situation that they haven't been trained to deal
> with and expect that they'll come through all right.
>
> I have to tell you, if I was Captain Archer, and if Porthos had eaten
> some native insect or something that killed him, I'd never forgive
> myself.
He probably wouldn't either.
>
> Bringing the dog on the ship for companionship is one thing, I don't
> mind that. But bringing him down to the planet was foolish. I don't
> see how you can claim that Porthos' companionship on a planetary
> survey was worth his potential death.
Given the information they had about the planet, it looked safe. Just as
someone traveling from Boston to LA on a United Airliner on September 11th
would have assumed that their pet would be likewise safe on the same plane.
Life itself is intrinsically unsafe by definition. To go through your life
worrying about "what if" is, in my opinion, foolhardy. If I was in Archer's
shoes, and I did lose my dog on an alien planet, I'd be mad at myself for a
short time, but I'd also be thankful for the time I'd had with the animal
that I wouldn't have had if I'd left him back on Earth.
That's my opinion and nothing you or anyone else says is going to change it.
Smiley
Yeah, given the information they HAD. They basically just eyeballed
the planet and said "Looks nice enough, let's go for a picnic!!" Did
you miss that T'Pol recommended more detailed scanning first? They
didn't make much of an attempt to find out what kind of dangers there
were - even putting HUMANS on that planet was dangerous and foolhardy.
Bringing a dog along was just more so.
MrSpook
>
><gspence...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
>news:ptfcstoes1jkqvckq...@4ax.com...
>
>> Always wondered what happened to dogs in the future. You don't see any
>> pets in the future except Data's cat Spot.
>>
>>
>
>Nope, Amanda the Q girl made puppies.
I really liked her. Is that a "bad" thing?
>And Q turned Bev into a golden retriever.
>
Nope. It was an Irish Setter. (Bev is Irish, you know.)
What a scene! Talk about splitting a gut LOL!
MrSpook
captjim
> Mayweather says D 500.
I distinctly heard him say "Y"-500.
Merrick Baldelli
<lbo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>So far, we've discussed the butterfly eating "strippers" from the first
>episode, the decontamination scene and nipple shots from the first episode,
>and the role of the dog in the crew...not what I'd consider serious topics.
Then there are my posts talking about the nits of the show,
the conversations on circumcision in the future, the talks about
Vulcans and their culture. Those aren't "serious" either, are they.
>> This newsgroup is for people to express their opinions and discuss
>> Star Trek Enterprise. Some people will have different opinions,
>> that's only natural. Do you expect them to just ignore one another?
>
>Don't ignore anyone. Just have a sense of humor about it...it is a tv show
>after all. Not a life and death serious topic.
And people accuse me of being a Drama Queen.
Sure it's a show, however, some people are very serious when
it comes to their entertainment, whereas others don't care if the set
looks like papier mache, just as long as it calls itself whatever the
genre it's supposed to represent.
>> I'll debate in this newsgroup as long as I want to, that's what it's
>> here for. If somebody disagrees with me, I'm going to back up my side
>> of the argument. As long as things stay civilized and don't turn into
>> a flame war, I'm pretty sure that the creators of this newsgroup are
>> fine with that.
>
>Now I'd say you're taking yourself slight too seriously. Tone it down,
>loosen up, and have fun.
I don't tell you how to enjoy yourself, don't tell me how to
either.
Chris OLin
PaulW wrote:
> gu...@intrasof.com (Smiley) wrote in message news:<3bc534e4...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>...
> > > Why not take the dog? I know people that take their dogs everywhere they
> > >go (that's legal to take a dog in). Since he took his dog for a short
> > >mission (which is how this started)
>
> I've been wondering how short. Was it supposed to be like " ...a
> three hour tour, a three hour tour"?
The weather did get worse, and on the second shuttle mission the "tiny ship was tossed".
Chris
Chris OLin
Carey wrote:
> While I can accept that Archer wanted to go down to an earth-like planet as
> part of the survey mission, I cannot accept that HE WOULD TAKE DOWN A DOG!
> I could actually accept such a thing in TNG or Voyager, as visiting new
> planets had become old hat. But this is one of the first new planets they
> had ever surveyed.
>
> This is the kind of behaviour that should have the crew considering the
> competence of their leader. No forethought, little preparation. Just
> unacceptable.
Ofcourse they took the dog. Just think, if they all fell down a well who
would go for help? And more importantly it set up the best 1 liner ever;
"Going where no dog as gone before".
I think they real question is, where does a dog do his *business* on a
cramped star ship.?
Chris
Matt V
remote capable of changing the channels on your
tv.......Christ......it's just a show!
Smiley
You know, I realize there are people out there who get nasty and dump
all over the show for very inconsequential reasons, and I don't
appreciate that any more than you do. Some people have genuine
critiques though, and are just trying to point out flaws in the
episode, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Don't tell somebody not to watch the show just because they pointed
out a flaw! It doesn't mean that they hate the show, or don't want to
watch it for god's sake! This guy had a valid point, and I'll side
with him on this because he didn't go out of his way to say that he
thought Enterprise sucked because of it.
Peter Fichera
>>Because a toddler is incapable of taking care of itself and might be
>>hurt. An adult dog is perfectly capable of running around on its own.
>>
>>I'm really not seeing the problem here. So he let his dog run around in
>>the woods for a while. Why does that get your shorts all in a bunch?
>
>I find it hard to believe that you can't get your mind around the
>seriousness of an away mission to an unexplored planet. They don't
>know anything about the lifeforms on this planet, what if the dog ran
>off after some squirrel-like creature that happened to be able to
>shoot out poisonous spikes and kill him? Or it's possible that the
>dog would be immune to the halucinogenic spores but would run through
>the field of flowers, then come back and infect anybody who came close
>enough to pet him, thus allowing them to become infected earlier and
>giving them less of a chance of survival.
>
>A planetary survey team is for crewmembers who know what they're doing
>to study the world - it's not a pleasure visit and definitely not for
>dogs.
>
>Do you see Vulcanologists bringing their dogs with them to study a
>dangerously active Volcano? Does a seargent bring his dog with him
>into a war zone? No, of course not, it's just too dangerous.
A point: This is not a trained first contact dog. I _would_ have
found it acceptable for the team to have such dogs (more than
one--they should have red collars....), but a poor little pet
beagle...no. I'm surprised that we haven't heard from the ASPCA on
this one....
BTW, on another doggie subject: While looking for a litter box for my
cat, I saw a big display in one of the local pet stores: Dog litter.
Maybe the product _does_ catch on--if the dog will actually use it it
does make sense for people living at the top of high-rise
appartments--and number 1 customer is Starfleet...
pgf
"Kill The Bastards!"(SM)
Chris OLin
>
>
> BTW, on another doggie subject: While looking for a litter box for my
> cat, I saw a big display in one of the local pet stores: Dog litter.
> Maybe the product _does_ catch on--if the dog will actually use it it
> does make sense for people living at the top of high-rise
> appartments--and number 1 customer is Starfleet...
One way of house breaking a puppy is train them to do their business on a
old new paper placed next to the door. Using the litter instead would not be
any harder.
Chris