"scottdanzig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 30, 2:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> "scottdanzig" > wrote in
>> ooglegroups.com...
>>
>> > JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> >> Fortunately, the border collie is dead.
>>
>> > Everyone I've talked to or read posts from in this newsgroup seem like
>> > kind, genuinely good people... except for you.
>> > - Scott
>>
>> People always say that when the subject of dogs comes up. But, they're no
>> different than mosquitoes, so I don't see what the problem is. Just
>> because
>> YOU think they're cute or useful or special doesn't mean everyone else
>> has
>> to agree.
>
> While I do admit to the personal bias of "loving dogs" (I find fault in
> the dog, not the owner), that is not even what irks me about the post I
> responded to. While it's true that you can austerely describe your
> comment off as non-conformist, independent thinking, you can certainly,
> with common sense, gauge the provocation of shock and disgust in those
> reading your posts. I'm not sure about the full extent of your
> callousness either. What's next? Are you going to lump in screaming
> babies, senior citizens that drive poorly, the mentally challenged that
> can't hold a job, and cripples that obstruct your path on the sidewalk.
> Do they fall into your "not useful" category and deserve to die? I
> wasn't just commenting on this post alone, however; I can tell from
> your other posts that you're not out to make friends here anyway.
>
> - Scott
>

I'll admit that I am a challenge, but a few of the higher-functioning people
here have managed to figure me out.

As far as shock and disgust, that's all relative, isn't it? My experiences
with dogs are just as valid as yours. Because of my history with the vermin,
I view them as annoyances, like mosquitoes, and many of their owners as
criminals and/or idiots. I won't elaborate here, but if I did, you would
have a difficult time disagreeing with me.