October 13, 2008

“The other day, when you asked whether I was a cat sympathizer, it had sort of an ominous tone.”

—It should: being a cat-sympathizer is about the worst thing anyone can be (other than actually being a cat, of course). But I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt which is why I used the word ‘sympathizer’ and not <at this point, Lewis gives a short bark that begins and ends with a throaty growl>.

“And what does that mean?”

—The short version would be ‘cat-lover,’ but a more accurate translation would probably be something like: ‘scentless mate of a skunk and spineless slave to a foul wretched beast with inscrutable eyes of evil that sleeps on your face and sucks the breath out of you as though you were a helpless, innocent infant, then kills you after making you forget to feed your loving dog enough biscuits.’

“Wow, that’s a lot for such a short bark.”

—It’s all in the inflection.

“Ah. I’m a little puzzled by that last part about the biscuits, as not many ‘cat-lovers’ would also have a relationship with a dog.”

—I may have embellished the translation just a little, but basically it’s accurate.

“So, am I hearing that you don’t get enough biscuits?”

—No, no, no. It’s more like ALL dogs aren’t getting enough biscuits, not just me.

“Right. What about the ‘scentless mate of a skunk’ part?”

—As far as we’re concerned, the canine community, that is, the worst thing in the world is to not have any smell, unless it’s smelling like a skunk, which is about the only smell we find objectionable: thus, the combination of the two is particularly insulting.

“I can see that. You once told me that little dogs are idiots; are cat-lovers worse than little dogs?”

—Absolutely! Little dogs are just idiots, but cat-lovers are traitors to the pack. Little dogs are still dogs, but cat-lovers are like . . . un-dogs or non-dogs, very, very bad.

“I see . . . I sure wouldn’t want to be one of those, then.”

—No, it would be most unfortunate.