"Pennyaline" > wrote in message
...
> Cheryl wrote:
>> "Pennyaline" > wrote
>>> I feel for the Rottie's owner only because she could end up losing her
>>> dog. I am angry that she didn't pay enough attention to notice it had
>>> gotten off its lead and wandered away from her. And I'm angry that, if
>>> she knew the dog didn't like having his back petted, she didn't do more
>>> to keep it away from the child.
>>>
>>> You I don't feel bad for. Fifteen minutes on line... oh my Gawd!
>>> Tragedy!
>>
>>
>> But you don't know me very well. Those who do know that what I wrote in
>> between those who need to be acting and weren't doing so.
>
> Uhhhhhh... what?
>
>
>
>> The store should have a control in process for when dogs bite and the
>> control dictates that the cashiers keep doing their job.
>
> Once more, with feeling: WHAT??
>
> You're wrong. I think I know you just fine. The post was all about the
> stupid dog owner and the irresponsible parents and the hidden employees
> who don't help customers, served with dollops of how badly they were
> wasting your time. There was no empathy for the Rottie owner, or even for
> the Rottie. You didn't come off as truly concerned about the little girl
> and you as near as libeled her parents. As for the store employees, you
> didn't relay the merest trace of understanding of what they were
> experiencing and the emergency they were being required to handle. It was
> all about how inconvenient the event was for you. If this had been a work
> of short fiction, you would score points for your main character's (that's
> you) appallingly insulated presence in the face of a catastrophe occurring
> within arms reach, with a nice attempt at epiphany when the blood on the
> floor and bags finally registers. But since it was a real event, you've
> only succeeded in portraying yourself as an asshole.

Damn! You're like my smarter sister on PMS. (No offense, Cheryl. I don't
even have a dog in this fight. So to speak.)