A poem I wrote about my cat

The reason my reply comes "days later" is perfectly pedestrian, it is because the interval in which I currently visit this site is measured in days. And it's not an "excuse" to me, I don't see a need for one in order to employ the word. If you do your lexicon differs from mine in a fundamental way and it's a matter about which we'll have to agree to disagree.

Your concern for site membership is conveniently selective. You did not berate farmerman for nearly driving away a member and selectively use this concept only to criticize my criticism herein. Thusly I'll give it all the consideration it is due, your criticism of my criticism of farmerman is duly noted.

I'd like to address, too, the notion that I don't care about who leaves the site. I care deeply about community cohesion, but ever since I started this site a decade ago people will occasionally tell me that their preferred way of running the community is right and if I do not adopt it the community will fail. Each time, it comes from someone who has never built a site of this size and who never will. It's not well-thought advice or even informed advice. Able2know continues to grow steadily and its demise remains unrealized rhetoric from armchair quarterbacks who are empirically wrong (they may or may not be right about their criticisms of me, but their incessant desire to don the mantle of the community in their criticism is unfounded, this is not a cult of personality and nobody is here just to be with me).

This site gets millions and millions of visitors a year. Even if it just changes something slight like navigation or colors thousands of people will leave it (or stay) as a result either way. No matter what I do, some will leave and some will stay and one constant is that there will be strong opinions about it and on a medium readily available for them I will hear plenty of them.

I used to let this distress me deeply but came to realize that I can't please everyone and must instead just try to be true to my vision of what I want to create and let the chips fall where they may. I measure feedback of the community on the whole instead of the bold proclamations of those who decide to speak for the community to predict its demise. The community is doing fine, and will continue to grow, whether or not you think I have struck the right emotional tone in one of its millions of posts.

I can certainly be a kinder, warmer, gentler human being. And I'll keep trying to be. But let's not pretend like the entire community is contingent on my ability to meet your muster. It isn't. Neither of us are anywhere near that important.

I have to listen to the community on the whole, not just the most vocal critics, and it and I will always have critics. That is part and parcel of putting yourself out there and doing things. And just because I don't bend over backward to each instance of emotional blackmail put to me doesn't mean I don't care.

But, as you point out, cats rule.

may I add that I am aware that I began a sentence with something which I ought not to have done.

Cats are awesome. Almost as much so as dogs, even.

Some cats are of an awesomeness of which dogs are unable even to dream.

How many cats have pulled their owners from burning buildings, rescued them, or shown undying loyalty to their deceased masters.

You know, I was joshing around when I started this but I the more I think about it the more I think the dog side actually has an overwhelming point. I don't know of a single awesome cat loyalty story to match the dozens and dozens of heroic dog stories I know.

But...cats haven't the larger physique that would make it possible to rescue a human. As for loyalty, you know the drill ... pack animal vs a non-pack animal.

Plus they'd have to stop grooming themselves long enough to press 911 on the phone.

I've had cats (2) in my past for many decades. Currently I have a wonderful dog and there's an unfair comparison. I love my dog as we can do a lot together I couldn't do with my cat. Cat's are a hoot to observe. Dogs you can take places, run in fields, and have adventures. However, put a cricket in a lanai or a porch and watch the action with the cat.

cats don't need us to survive and they know it.

that they choose to spend their lives with us is a special gift...

I love them both, which is why I was only joking when I needled a cat-only type. And cats certainly are more fun to observe and the interactions with them are more subtle.

But I really am struck by the preponderance of heroics dogs have pulled off for us vs cats. Their physical build and nature and all certainly play a part (dogs also kill more people than cats, for that matter), and it's not like we can compare the character of them this way or anything, but there's something to be said for dogs and the purity of the love they are capable of.

I'm in agreement.

I saw an interesting special on PBS that talked about man's domesitication of dog. The special indicated that advancement of mankind has been greatly helped by the domestication of dogs. As man learned that dogs could be trianed, they got a strong and willing fellow worker, burglar alarm and protector from other aninmal attacks. Coincidentally, man found amusemnt plus cooperation. Dogs had a liking for the varied food and shelter provided from man. Somehow they had an affinity for each other and both advanced as a species.

Oddly, the pig as a species is as smart or smarter, but things didn't progress the same way there. Wonder if it's because they tasted better than did dogs?

that may be because pigs will eat us.

anybody seen Bernie?

nope. not for days.

hmmmm.

he musta pissed off his pig...

Ahahha.

In a Wiki article it underscores what I was attemtping to say about mankind's avancement due to domestication of the dog:

Early Roles

"Wolves, and their dog descendants, would have derived significant benefits from living in human camps—more safety, more reliable food, lesser caloric needs, and more chance to breed. They would have benefited from humans’ upright gait that gives them larger range over which to see potential predators and prey, as well as color vision that, at least by day, gives humans better visual discrimination. Camp dogs would also have benefitted from human tool use, as in bringing down larger prey and controlling fire for a range of purposes.

Humans would also have derived enormous benefit from the dogs associated with their camps. For instance, dogs would have improved sanitation by cleaning up food scraps. Dogs may have provided warmth, as referred to in the Siberian Aboriginal expression “three dog night” (an exceptionally cold night), and they would have alerted the camp to the presence of predators or strangers, using their acute hearing to provide an early warning.

Anthropologists believe the most significant benefit would have been the use of dogs' sensitive sense of smell to assist with the hunt. The relationship between the presence of a dog and success in the hunt is often mentioned as a primary reason for the domestication of the wolf, and a 2004 study of hunter groups with and without a dog gives quantitative support to the hypothesis that the benefits of cooperative hunting was an important factor in wolf domestication.

The cohabitation of dogs and humans would have greatly improved the chances of survival for early human groups, and the domestication of dogs may have been one of the key forces that led to human success."

For those who missed this earlier dogs v cats reference...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whwiMrBNWCA

Another benefit which they haven't canvassed there is dogs as baby-sitters, the minders of children. As observed in the wild, canids are far more tolerant of infant and "child" (puppy) behavior than we are. Whether it's a puppy or a child, dogs will tolerate them climbing on them, biting them, pulling their ears--all manner of behavior which would likely get the back of the hand from mom or dad. That aspect of the dog-man relationship would have freed women for tasks in the camp, or for men and women to gather forage foods more assiduously. I think the problems we have between dogs and children arise because of the intense breeding for traits which has produced high strung dogs.

If you were referring to me, I love dogs too. In fact, I'd like to GET a dog again, now that I have a garden and all, except that I am not home enough to meet a dog's needs. Heck, I'm not home enough to meet the rather extreme needs of my cats!

But cats have been badly burned getting their kittens away from fires, cats have woken people to warn them of fires. Sebastian attacked a cat that had attacked me....but I'm not sure if it was protection or he thought he could get it while it was distracted!

It's actually not entirely true that theyre not social animals...not that I think they'd be inferior to dogs if it WERE entirely true...cat ethologists studying colonies of barn cats and the coliseum cats have noted clear dominance structures and strong bonds between lineages of female cats who co-operate in kitten raising etc. I have had cats who were inconsolable when their cat companion died, or, as with Viola's recent awful illness, had to stay for long periods at the vet's.

Dogs' protectiveness and loyalty is, indeed, lovely to have around as is the whole walking thing. I choose more doglike cats because I love their deep affection and intelligence and interactiveness....but the cat who walks alone is pretty cool, too.

I don't seriously think it's an either/or thing....they're lovely in their special ways.

I can romp with my current cats, by the way....and Sebastian loves going for walks...I'm going to try him on the beach soon....the only limiting factor for him is my fear that a dog off leash will attack him and I won't be able to stop it if it is big enough to grab him from my arms.

Cats often seem to be extraordinarily tolerant of kids...mine have been...put up with all sorts of ****.

I had a client once whose cat seemed to have some sort of almost spooky bond with her son...she said it began when he was in utero, when the cat would spend hours apparently listening to the heartbeat.

Sadly, I was seeing them because things were going very badly and the cat had taken on a strongly protective role. It would warn off and even attack the mother when it thought she was being too harsh with the little boy. Fortunately, this would be a circuit breaker for the mother, otherwise I think there would have been physical abuse. Psychologically, too, I think that cat's love was a very protective factor in the child's life.

I don't doubt it for a moment. The old Christian hangover is to purport that animals are just animals, but humans are superior. I don't buy that. Domestic animals have very distinct and strong personalities. I think we've probably had dogs longer than we've had cats, but the bonds between humans and dogs or cats can be and often are as strong as those they have with other human-type apes. We all are, after all, animals.

As an owner of four Border Collie's, I concur absotively!

I think Set'll be glad to see another fan of border collies

agile cats...