And one thing I know: Flo will never get her own pet mobile (via J walk)
You can now call your pet anytime
I don't think we would have that much to say to each other.
Had he still been with us, I may have been tempted for a weak nanosecond to indulge Doug - except experience tells me that dogs are usually less than excited to hear a familiar human voice transmitted by telephone. They cock their ears in mild acoustic interest at best. Bronte - the cleverest here - much prefers random animal noises, but they are not exactly reassuring. Even if she did recognise my voice on her collarset, it wouldn't soothe her. The spatial confusion would trouble her. It would only say non-presence, speaking absence, and she'd run under the bed again.
And it is sobering to read on the Pets mobile site that Current estimates predict pet and pet related expenditures in 2004 to exceed $34.3 Billion in the US alone.
See post below.
Comments: masked dog
nice puppy
and very sluggish on the dial up here, too
Posted by Zoe at November 9, 2004 11:11 PM
Actually Zoe, she's not that nice ;)
(as compared to, say, a labrador, or most dogs really, although the pointy ears are growing on me. So to speak)
She was brought up on a farm, my flatmate inherited her, and she's still got the mad herder in her. Daily she impersonates a pet, but the wolf is always lurking. Oh well, she gives me filler on slow days - and as you say, it's very 'slow days' here at the moment.
So slow I almost took the broadband leap.
Posted by boynton at November 9, 2004 11:35 PM
Valiant Boynton! In genteel defense of the men of the forest.
There's a spirit map that explains the $34.3 billion US pet indulgences being side-by-side with vanishing primate cousins, not to mention songbirds and elephants, but that map's rather hard to find at the moment.
Thanks for the reminder that it's there.
Posted by vernaculo at November 10, 2004 10:36 AM
I suppose it's indulgences in general.
The indulgences of humans.
Consumer choices across the board.
It's just that the indulgent pet dollar sits so easily side by side.
Chasing up an $AUS figure I found this:
Aussies favour pets over foreign aid
http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/27/1090693953957.html
"An Australia Institute report, titled Overconsumption of Pet Food in Australia, estimates Australians spend more than $2.2 billion on their pets compared to foreign aid spending of less than $2 billion"
Pets are so often the prime example of warped priorities. I'd also like to see how other indulgences stack up. I bet Australains spent more on chlorine, cosmetics, cars, computers etc
Posted by boynton at November 10, 2004 11:07 AM
erm...
I bet "Australians" do too.
And I hope the map can resurface..
Posted by boynton at November 10, 2004 11:20 AM
Greetings, Scrivener -
You are allowed three mispellings daily, gratis, provided they're made in the interest of diligence and rapidity of locution. All others will be charged to your account, in the event we find it.
Cheers,
Grammar Board Ltd.
"Your Guardians of Proper Usage"
-
I have loved some dogs more than many humans, and in the mix of loved ones I recall I make no distinctions by species, because my heart insists that it be so.
It's not the pets' lives, it's the owners', that's where the fault is. It's a kind of environmental PCness to start with the symptoms and move toward the disease, because it's easier and simpler.
As though we're all units in some abstract accountancy.
We're not, I'm not anyway, and I don't think you are or I wouldn't have written this.
Posted by vernaculo at November 10, 2004 08:17 PM
Dear Board
3 free daily misspellings seems generous, but
even then the pressure to be foolproof is onerous. I suspect I may need to upgrade my Account. Do you offer a Plan with Unlimited typos and grammatical errors over a fixed term?
Yours,
Scrivenro
Posted by boynton at November 11, 2004 11:43 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment