Wednesday, February 26, 2014
I am often a creature of habit and as such one of the first things I do in the morning after my breakfast and reading two of my daily, for lack of a better term, newspapers; is to go to my desktop computer open and scan my email before going to my bookmarks and either opening Dan Damon’s Clips or if that date's is not yet on line; I check Bernice’s and David Rutherford’s blog sites.
Today was different. As you may have read that in my dotage a new member has joined my family. At present he is placing demands upon my time that I am sure will be minimal and routine within a few weeks if that long.
Up to now there has been a great deal of uncertainty and disruption in Dawg's short two years but he is coping better than expected as long as does not have to worry about his “daily three squares” and knows that my bed is soft. Already his anxiety state is lessened when I go out for a few minutes.
But I do digress from the subject matter at hand. Because of play sessions amongst other morning related activities with Dawg including trying to button his coat, I abandoned my usual routine and was not aware of David Rutherford’s critical blog until a mid-morning call from a dear friend. It was still later when I did read it.
Of course I did read it and suffice to say it deserves rebuttal. However under present circumstances that may be delayed for a few days in as much as it is obvious that he has completely misinterpreted my February 14 blog “APARTHEID???”.
I want to be sure that, if possible, I can clarify some of his confusion. I did not think that I was to use his words “coming at” him, but rather addressing a specific but broad topic.
On the other hand, I take umbrage at be accused of employing “the tacky maneuver of quoting me before adding his response” (his words). I believe that my comments were peculiarly related to definitive subjects and could be meaningless or even ranting without the presence of the references.
I will ASAP try to elucidate what I believe I was being explicit in each of my commentaries. In the meantime, David please believe that I was not faulting you.
By the way I have read all 25 pages of the Rutgers’s Report.