An ethical conundrum
When Bertie has been out in the rain, the fur on his head and neck gets really curly. He looks like a little woolly lamb.
Would it be very, very wrong to use some kind of styling product (note total lack of familiarity with hair gunk) to retain that just-in-out-of-the-rain curliness?
Would it be very, very wrong to use some kind of styling product (note total lack of familiarity with hair gunk) to retain that just-in-out-of-the-rain curliness?
The Editor
posted by
Lady Bracknell | Friday, May 11, 2007
8 Comments:
I implore you not to. Cats lick their fur to clean it and to cool themselves, remember; and that goes double for when they sense anything foreign on it.
You could be giving the Young Master a really nasty tummyache.
To the above commenter: do you really think that any bear with sufficient brain to work a computer would really be so totally and utterly idiotic as to seriously consider doing that?
You are insulting both the Editor's intelligence, her knowledge of (and affection for) her cats and the proper care and maintenance thereof.
Not to mention her sense of humour.
Am I? Becca, you would be amazed at what people will do in all good faith. Especially if they
see it on the internet or on TV.
I have nurtured rescue animals for more than twenty years. I have given up wondering at the incredibly stipid things people will do. Could you believe that someone would be so idiotic as to take the Hale & Pace sketch about microwaving a cat literally? They (H&P) defended the sketch saying it couldn't do any harm. I know of two attested cases in subsequent years, where it happened.
It is really remarkable, the stupidity of people who work computers, when they get off the keyboard, alas.
So you're suggesting that the esteemed Editor is in fact that stupid and would participate in an act of such blind cruelty, then?
I've been involved in animal welfare for the best part of 20 years too; you are not unique in your insight into acts of cruelty nor in your dedication to and affection for animals of varying shapes and sizes.
It's not necessary to pontificate at me; nor, as well you know, at the good Editor.
You really have a problem, don't you! Do you have to be personally offensive right from the off?
I'm talking about those who would read this blog, which is very popular, can you understand that?
And noting that this blog is pre-modded, I'm saddened that the Editor chooses to have such remarks published. I would not permit posters to use my blog to attack on other parties. If she would prefer me not to comment on her blog, she has only to say so, not to use you as her stalking-horse.
Ok, that is just about e-bloody-nough.
Charles, you wore out your welcome on this blog a long time ago. I have tried to impart that fact to you in as un-public a fashion as possible, but those attempts clearly haven't worked. You are clearly impervious to subtlety.
I disagreed in the politest possible terms with some of your recent "suggestions": in return you sent me a comment which you knew I could not publish and retain my carefully-guarded anonymity. That comment looked like an apology at first glance. But it wasn't. It was yet another opportunity for you to demonstrate that you know more about my pain and my life than I do.
As you are someone who purports to be a campaigner for disability equality, I am astonished that you would stoop so low as to attack someone who has Asperger's syndrome for the calibre of her social skills. Someone who was, in any event, merely reacting in my defence against the comment in which you insulted me. Someone of whom I am very fond.
There is a great deal more that I could say, but I shall refrain in the interests of my other readers.
In case I haven't made myself perfectly clear, any further comments you make on this blog, or any attempts you make to contact me by email, will be deleted unread.
Charlesdawson....
You do appear to be a vitriolic little worm. You should do the gentlemanly thing and remove yourself from this blog for good.
You are a disgraceful and hateful little man, and you shouldn't behave in such a way...
Clear off.
I'm talking about those who would read this blog, which is very popular, can you understand that?"
I must say I found both your original comment, and your response to Becca to be highly insulting and patronzing. Not only to The Editor and Becca, but the rest of us who read and enjoy Lady Bracknell's blog.
I dare say you are, in all likelihood, the only person who took the post in a literal minded way. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, yet knew instantly she was joking. Your above comment implies that those of us who read Lady Bracknells blog not only lack a sense of humour we are obviously not very bright either.
I would say to you sir that Lady Bracknells readers are not stupid. Do please stop implying that we are.
Post a Comment
<< Home