Skip to main content

Cats n Dogs

Most people I know are either cat people or dog people. There's the odd exception like the venerable Doctor Gee who seems equally fond of both (though I think he favours Heidi), but most have a preference, often strong.

This view is more than reflected in the animals themselves. Let's face it, dogs don't like cats, and cats don't like dogs. In a big way.

So this gives me a distinct dilemma when I take Goldie for a walk. We are strolling along, Goldie on the lead, and a cat hoves into view. Immediately she tries to run after it, making whining noises. 'That cat,' thinks Goldie, 'should not be here. And it's my business to make sure it isn't for long.'

Now I have two options at this point. I can pull here away with the mildly offensive sounding command 'Leave it!' (Not really anti-cat, it's just the standard 'leave something alone' command.) Or I can give her a bit of free rein, let her chase towards the cat, which runs away and we carry on with the walk.

I have to confess I sometimes do the latter. The way I look at it, it gives Goldie a bit of exercise, it stops her straining at the lead (once the cat has gone she stops pulling), and I never let her get anywhere near the cat. She's only doing what comes naturally.

Oh, and I only do it if the cat looks really smug.

No cats were hurt in the making of this blog post.


  1. At one time we had a golden retriever and a white cat.They got on very well and used to sleep together.

    Later we had a border collie and he loved to chase cats.

    I like both dogs and cats, but right now my preference is for cats as I am owned by one at present.

  2. The -Venereal- Venerable Doctor Gee wishes it to be known that he has a dog and cats, but confirms Mr Clegg's suspicions that he's really more of a dog person. However, the dog at issue has grown up in a houseful of cats, and treats them with a great deal of kindness. The sentiment is reciprocated. The animals all get on fairly well together, and signs of amity have even been observed between cats and bunnies. The cat, however, remains fairly terrified of the -dinosaurs- chickens.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope