Dave Barry on cats
sharon devol
CO:>: > -Dave Barry
CO:>Chuckle.....
CO:>One of my favorite humorists.
OK, how about this:
From "THE PRESS ENTERPRISE" March 24, 1993
BY: Dave Barry
Over the years, many cat-lovers have asked me: "Dave, how come
you never write about cats? Is it because you don't LIKE cats?
Is is because cats are vicious unprincipled household parasites
that will stroll up to the person who has fed them for 17 years
and, without provocation, claw this person's shin flesh into
lasagne? Is it because they are lazy, ungrateful, hairball-
spewing...HEY! These aren't cat-lover quotations! You're making
these quotations up!"
O.K., so I do not harbor a great fondness for cats. But I intend
to change my ways, because I sincerely, in my heart, want to cash
in on the wave of Cat Mania that is sweeping the nation. The
cause of this wave is of course the Clinton family cat, Socks
Rodham Clinton, who was recently confirmed as Official White
House Pet following lengthy Senate hearings in which is was
determined that he had never knowingly employed illegal aliens.
(Socks did, in his youth, experiment with catnip, but he did not
inhale.) So today I'm going to report some exciting developments
in cat care. I'm not making these developments up; they were all
brought to my attention by alert cat-loving readers such as
Sharon Boltz, who sent me a newspaper advertisement for the Cat
Tub. This is a cat-washing device, and it's about time somebody
invented one, because if you have ever attempted to wash a cat by
hand, you are dumber than you look.
The Cat Tub ad has a photograph of a cat sitting inside a wire
basket; the cat's head and front paws are sticking out the top,
through a loose collar. The basket has been submerged, up the
the cat's neck, in a clear plastic cylinder filled with water.
There's a hose attached to a kitchen faucet so that water
circulates around the cat, like a washing machine. You just KNOW
how much the cat is enjoying this. The cat is staring into the
camera, clearly thinking: "Somehow, someday, I am going to evolve
to the point where I can order a handgun by mail and GET EVEN
with the person who invented this."
I called up this person, a San Diego architectural draftsman
named Brad Davis, who told me that he invented the Cat Tub five
years ago for his cat, Juan, when he (Juan) developed a flea
problem. "I had the bathe him a lot, and it was VERY difficult,"
he said. "Cats go ballistic when you put them in water. And
they have claws."
(I just want to note for the record that dogs NEVER scratch you
when you wash them. They just become very sad and try to figure
out what they did wrong.)
Davis said that the Cat Tub restrains the cat "very humanely," so
that is has no choice but to sit there and get clean and hate
you. Although Davis claims that most cats seem to adjust.
"O.K., they don't LOVE it," he said. "But they TOLERATE it."
Anyway, I think this is a terrific sanitation concept, which
might someday be adapted for use with larger hard-to-bath species
such as cows, horses and my son. The Cat Tub retails for $59.95;
for more information, write to 2445 Jaun Street, San Diego, CA.
92110.
Another new wrinkle in cat hygiene was brought to my attention by
Patricia Southward, who mailed me a newspaper article concerning
a senior-citizen talent show in Sandford, Fla. The show featured
an act my a woman named Harriett Boyd, her cat "Streaky" and her
small dog. The article, by Mark Barfield, states: "The little
dog ran around the stage while Boyd held the cat draped over her
shoulder, made it sit and stay on a stand while she walked away
and vacuumed it.
"Yes, she vacuumed the cat, to its obvious pleasure. She rubbed
the roaring attachment over the cat's back while it stretched in
luxurious appreciation."
Needless to say, this act won the silver talent medal. I would
not be surprised to see your big international stars such as
Michael Jackson vacuuming cats on stage while a little dog runs
around.
Anyway, let's say you have washed and vacuumed your cat, and now
you'd like to give it a nice meal. But let's say, for one reason
or another, your cat has no teeth. In this case you will want to
purchase a product featured in an advertisement sent in by Ellen
Feehan. The advertisement has a picture of a scientific-looking
device, next to which is the following headline, which I swear I
am not making up: "Only the Polytron reduces an entire mouse to a
soup-like homogenate in 30 seconds."
Like most people, I have always yearned for such a capability, so
I called the manufacturer, Brinkmann Instruments, and spoke with
a customer-service representative named Jeanette. She told me
that the Polytron is used for laboratory-sample preparation by
the scientific community, which is constantly striving to achieve
important breakthroughs in mankind's ability to do stuff to mice.
"It's kind of like a very strong food processor," she said.
I asked her if any cat-owners had bought Polytrons so they could
provide their pets with nutritious Liquid Mouse Treats, and she
said she didn't think so, because the basic model costs over
$4,000. This is a lot of money for the average civilian, but
your more affluent cat-loving individuals and institutions could
easily afford a Polytron. I understand that the White House has
ordered six.
* OLX 2.2 * Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Paul Stout
: coa...@cyberspace.com (Paul Stout) wrote:
: CO:>: > -Dave Barry
: CO:>Chuckle.....
: CO:>One of my favorite humorists.
: OK, how about this:
: From "THE PRESS ENTERPRISE" March 24, 1993
: BY: Dave Barry
: Over the years, many cat-lovers have asked me: "Dave, how come
: you never write about cats? Is it because you don't LIKE cats?
: Is is because cats are vicious unprincipled household parasites
: that will stroll up to the person who has fed them for 17 years
: and, without provocation, claw this person's shin flesh into
: lasagne? Is it because they are lazy, ungrateful, hairball-
: spewing...HEY! These aren't cat-lover quotations! You're making
: these quotations up!"
OH golly!!! I love it.... Keep em' coming.
You're just making me wish the Seattle Times printed his column more than
once a week.
Paul G. Stout
Bill Marcum
Thank you for posting that. NOT! I'm sure you enjoyed reading that
column, but thanks to thoughtless people like you, Dave Barry's
publishers have discontinued the clari.feature.dave-barry newsgroup,
which was distributing Dave's column every week to thousands of paying
customers.
--
Bill Marcum bma...@iglou.com
"I used to be such a sweet sweet thing 'til they got a hold of me"
--Alice Cooper, "No More Mr. Nice Guy"
sharon devol
bma...@iglou.iglou.com (Bill Marcum) writes:
BM:>Thank you for posting that. NOT! I'm sure you enjoyed reading that
BM:>column, but thanks to thoughtless people like you,
Thank you for your kind and considerate admonition. NOT!
* OLX 2.2 * Professionals built the TITANIC. Amateurs built the ARK.
cindi ann meisenhelder
>Thank you for posting that. NOT! I'm sure you enjoyed reading that
>column, but thanks to thoughtless people like you, Dave Barry's
>publishers have discontinued the clari.feature.dave-barry newsgroup,
>which was distributing Dave's column every week to thousands of paying
>customers.
Huh?
cindi
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>Cindi Meisenhelder * email: ci...@mik.uky.edu <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Laura Johnston
wrote:
>
> bma...@iglou.iglou.com (Bill Marcum) writes:
>
> BM:>Thank you for posting that. NOT! I'm sure you enjoyed reading that
> BM:>column, but thanks to thoughtless people like you,
>
> Thank you for your kind and considerate admonition. NOT!
>
Bill kindly and considerately avoided mentioning that you have committed
a violation of U.S. copyright laws and that you are subject to prosecution.
This kind of rights-infringement has already led to more than Dave Barry's
column being yanked away from paying net subscribers. It has also
had a chilling effect on publishers considering making copyrighted material
available on the net.
DO NOT post copyrighted material to the net!
--
Laura Johnston co...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
"The American public knows what it wants--something stupid--and
it's not easily fooled." Roy Blount Jr.
erin rebecca miller
>Bill kindly and considerately avoided mentioning that you have committed
>a violation of U.S. copyright laws and that you are subject to prosecution.
>This kind of rights-infringement has already led to more than Dave Barry's
>column being yanked away from paying net subscribers. It has also
>had a chilling effect on publishers considering making copyrighted material
>available on the net.
>
>DO NOT post copyrighted material to the net!
I'm a bit confused. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just that it
doesn't quite make sense to me. Obviously posting copyrighted stuff on the
net is wrong. But the original respondent said that because of this kind
of reposting, a newsgroup called clari.feature.dave-barry distributed by
his publishers, was discontinued. The publishers would make no money (I
don't think, anyway) by putting his work on the net, so how would
reposting something from that group cause them to lose out on and
therefore discontinue the group? I guess I mean, if they were putting it
out there without any gain to themselves, they lose nothing by having
other people repost (unless those other people are charging for it). Have
I gotten the facts wrong or can someone explain this one to me?
erin
Catherine Stanton
> I'm a bit confused. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just that it
> doesn't quite make sense to me. Obviously posting copyrighted stuff on the
> net is wrong. But the original respondent said that because of this kind
> of reposting, a newsgroup called clari.feature.dave-barry distributed by
> his publishers, was discontinued. The publishers would make no money (I
> don't think, anyway) by putting his work on the net, so how would
> reposting something from that group cause them to lose out on and
> therefore discontinue the group? I guess I mean, if they were putting it
> out there without any gain to themselves, they lose nothing by having
> other people repost (unless those other people are charging for it). Have
> I gotten the facts wrong or can someone explain this one to me?
It's like this: Clari is authorized to publish these articles on the net.
For that, people pay them, and ClariNet pays the publishers. So, you're
wrong in thinking that they would make no money by putting his work on the
net. They were making money off that group, but when paying customers with
ClariNet subscriptions pirate that material and then copy it for just anyone
to read, the publishers see their income go out the window.
That, in short, is how the posting of Dave Barry's column on rec.pets.cats
contributed to the screwing over of ClariNet customers who wanted to read
Dave Barry's column in an appropriate, not copyright violated, forum.
Cat
---- c...@uunet.uu.net --------------------------------------------------------
Whatever Andy says is likely to get me in trouble. USENET != USANet
--------------------------------------------- c...@rumpleteazer.feline.org ----
Debbie Kraft
>Thank you for posting that. NOT! I'm sure you enjoyed reading that
>column, but thanks to thoughtless people like you, Dave Barry's
>publishers have discontinued the clari.feature.dave-barry newsgroup,
>which was distributing Dave's column every week to thousands of paying
>customers.
Ah--so nice to know that Dave Barry's publishers are motivated by greedy
lust for that extra buck, and God forbid *anyone* should leech a little off
by any means.
Hey! What about all those people who read the newspaper in the library
and *make copies* of his column, huh? What about them? Did Dave Barry's
publishers cancel his ClariNet group because of them, too?
Sometimes Capitalism Sucks Mouse Guts...Y'know What I Mean? --
/\ /\
^o o^ D.K. "Cat" Kraft
->T<- c...@eskimo.com
~ Edmonds, WA -- Home of Jimmy Doohan, Star Trek's Scotty
___oOO___OOo___
Stephen W. Dennison
>From: ermi...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (erin rebecca miller)
>Subject: Re: Dave Barry on cats
>Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 03:23:05 GMT
>In article <cozmo-290...@slip-2-7.ots.utexas.edu> co...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Laura Johnston) writes:
>I'm a bit confused. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just that it
>doesn't quite make sense to me. Obviously posting copyrighted stuff on the
>net is wrong. But the original respondent said that because of this kind
>of reposting, a newsgroup called clari.feature.dave-barry distributed by
>his publishers, was discontinued. The publishers would make no money (I
>don't think, anyway) by putting his work on the net, so how would
>reposting something from that group cause them to lose out on and
>therefore discontinue the group? I guess I mean, if they were putting it
>out there without any gain to themselves,
... they weren't ...
> they lose nothing by having
>other people repost (unless those other people are charging for it). Have
>I gotten the facts wrong or can someone explain this one to me?
I believe that people with clarinet access have to *pay* for the clarinet feed
in addition to their normal Usenet feed ... therefore, it's like photocopying
a book ... The internet is a spigot where *most* of the water you get is
free ... but you *pay* for the Perrier.
-- Stephen
Laura Johnston
wrote:
> Hey! What about all those people who read the newspaper in the library
> and *make copies* of his column, huh? What about them? Did Dave Barry's
> publishers cancel his ClariNet group because of them, too?
Your point is an excellent one. The print media types say it's a matter of
degree. For instance, consider how many people got that Barry column for
free
from one person. The effort involved in copying electronic information is
minimal compared to the work of finding and photocopying a newspaper
column.
Truly though, I think it's just suspicion of electronic publishing on the
part of the newsprint media. They fear electronic communication, and with
good reason! It cuts into their business. I think we net.denizens need to
prove to them we can respect private property in order to encourage them to
make copyrighted material available on the net.
William December Starr
In article <-CH4kWXi1...@eskimo.com>,
c...@eskimo.com (Debbie Kraft) said:
> Ah--so nice to know that Dave Barry's publishers are motivated by
> greedy lust for that extra buck, and God forbid *anyone* should leech
> a little off by any means.
>
> Hey! What about all those people who read the newspaper in the
> library and *make copies* of his column, huh? What about them? Did
> Dave Barry's publishers cancel his ClariNet group because of them,
> too?
>
> Sometimes Capitalism Sucks Mouse Guts...Y'know What I Mean? --
Of course, if it wasn't for capitalism, we'd probably never have had
Dave's columns in the first place...
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>