I have heard enough false arguments about cats being superior to dogs.
It is simply not true. An animal does not need to be intelligent to be self-centered, destructive and exceedingly boring. Just because a cat makes itself a nuisance when it is hungry doesn't mean it has any kind of great intelligence. Babies do the same, and then learn that cooperation is a more effective and intelligent way to get someone to do something for you. Cats never get this. They hide when company comes, then reappear when they smell food. The company, obviously feeling sorry for the poor, rediculous animal, might give in if they are a cat person, but otherwise, a cat will get nothing. Cats are animals that are finicky about food that is actually good for them, and then go forth to lick on the leaves of the poisonous Diefenbacia plant, even though every time they've done this they've gone blind for 12 hours.
The only reason cat-people think cats are so intelligent is that cats are generally superior in intelligence to cat-people. Anyone with an I.Q. higher than their shoe size prefers other animals such as parakeets, fish, or guinea pigs. If a person possesses a better-than-average intelligence, he or she is apt to choose a dog for a pet.
Dogs show their obvious superior intelligence by co-operation with humans. They know not to climb into car engines. They come when their master calls them. They understand when their master is down in the dumps or sad. They do tricks: not for their master's pleasure, but for their own. Most importantly, they understand the difficult part of communication: listening. I've never heard of a cat listening to a word any master said. Then, as they munch on a wire to the local clothes dryer and have 30 amps of electronic flow run through their body, finally learn at their death the value of listening. They later reincarnate as a much more intelligent animal such as a paramecium, a newt, or (if they are lucky) a cow.
The arguments between dog and cat lovers have been long, arduous and redundant ones. This is common when there is a group of people who are intelligent and who understand what intelligence is (like dog-people), and a group of people who continuously push false logic upon the masses and presume it is complete intelligence (like cat-people).
While the intelligent dog-lovers do the intelligent thing and *listen* to the cat lovers, they go home to their loving friends, assured they have made the right choice about which pet to buy, while the cat lovers continue to knock their cats off the kitchen counter for the sixteen millionth time.
It is to our delight that many people felt inclined to comment on the subject of pornography. Here are some of the responses:
RE: pornography, and whether it should be banned.
I don't think pornography should
be banned in a broad sense. I am not condoner or a
subscriber to this material, but, it probably should be out there for
are whether we like it or not. Families with computers at home can get
will not allow access to these sites, that's parental control: to me
that's ok. Also your
internet service provider could probably put some controls on access to
these sites, and
require a password with prior age verification, thats control to adults
only and thats
ok. Also may I say that it is all our responsibility, to inform
authorities if children are being exploited in this material.
Leroy Anderson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Hugh Hefner should be so proud! I agree with Dalhousie. That fact is
the Internet is another medium to transmit information. People may say
what they like about intellectual freedom, but do they fully practice
"What is good for the goose is good for the gander"? Only when it's
advantageous. If someone were to exploit nude pictures of their wives
& daughters, husbands & sons, I'm sure a different tune would sound. Having
certain freedoms incurs certain responsibilities when things go awry.
If the Federal Government was serious about pornography, their own laws
forbid approval according to one of your quotes. But it permits the
sale of Playboy & Penthouse. If controls such as limiting access through
subscription could be imposed, then the Internet is little different
than other mediums. Do Netware Administrators want a standard set, or is
this simply a gut reaction? I prefer clean topics and have not been
disappointed thus far. Women are targeted by little boys in a grown male
body. The material isn't one way. No mature man would stoop so low.
John McKenzie Fraser (email@example.com)
If you have any questions about Chebucto Community Net Policies, you should mail to the CCN Policy Information Committee. They are apt to answer any questions you may have.
I was upset to read "Chebucto Community Net Spokeman" John van Gurp quoted in today's (8/1/97) Daily News as saying that police needn't have had a warrant to ensure CCN's co-operation. How far does this policy go? If the police want to read my e-mail, do they simply have to whisper in van Gurp's ear? This is outrageous. I hope van Gurp was speaking off the top of his head without thinking the implications through. If turning over member files to police on request really is CCN policy, I will cancel my membership. Could CCN please clarify this? Parker Barss Donham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
The views expressed here are strictly that of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Chebucto Connections or the Chebucto Community Net.Opinion Page
Chebucto Connections welcomes Letters to the Editor. If you have a view that you wish to express in Chebucto Connections, please write and email to Ryan Deschamps with your letter and a subject line "Letters to the Editor". Please include your full (Real) name and email address, and a statement giving Chebucto Connections permission to publish your letter. No letters longer than 500 words, please.
Last Month: December 1996