"You can't be too careful," I said. "You can't know a computer's past just by looking at it," I said. My computer would always give me that "I know, I know" smile and go on about its business. But computers these days, they just don't listen. They think they're invincible. "Give me a break, it won't happen to me," they say. And I do hear them say that when they don't know I'm listening. But this just goes to show that it most certainly can happen. And if it can happen to my computer, it can happen to anyone's computer. So please, don't take your computer's health lightly, it's not worth the risk. Practice safe surfing. Don't let my suffering be in vein.
So anyway, while my computer had the SARS, I had plenty of time to myself. I never realized just how reliant I was to the internet until I couldn't access it. I love the internet. If it had a nice car and a good job, I'd marry it. Anyway, with all the free time I had I figured I'd complete the multitude of projects that I'd been putting off. I didn't actually end up doing any of them, but I did take my friend's dog to the dog park and I came to a realization: there are two kinds of people in this world.
Republican and Democrat? Nope. Gentile and Jew? Huh-uh. Van Halen fans "pre" and "post" David Lee Roth? Not-even-close-bud. No, the two kinds of inhabitants of this world are dog people and cat people. It all comes down to one of those two. Take a look around and you'll see what I mean.
First off, let me just say that I grew up with both cats and dogs (which must be why I'm so well adjusted). But as I've grown older and wiser, my true self has emerged and I've come to realize that I am, in fact, a dog person. I guess it's something that I've always known but have only now come to fully accept. However, being a dog person doesn't nullify me from being objective about this whole cat/dog thing. I'm a dog person, remember? Therefore, I'm all about fairness and objectivity (unlike those shady cat people who always look like they're up to something).
The best way to start the comparisons between dog people and cat people is at the very beginning, the rearing process. Raising a dog is like raising a child. It requires love and patience and will be reciprocated tenfold. Raising a cat is like raising a land carp. Cats don't really care if you're there or not as long as they have food on their plates and a clean place to eliminate (they're eerily reminiscent of the Clemson women that I've dated in that way). But that's one of the pluses to owning cats, you can be an absentee owner and it's no big deal. Dog people want a companion and cat people want a moody door stop.
Dog people are very social creatures, which is why dog parks exist. If you've never been to a dog park you have to go sometime, it's a blast. It's a bunch of crazed canines running around, playing. It's a virtual puppy playground. Have you ever been to a cat park? I have and it's called a zoo. There are no actual cat parks because it would just be a bunch of snippy people sneering at each other with their felines at their feet.
There are fringe elements within these two groups. There are the cholo/skinheads out there that compensate for their anatomical shortcomings by raising vicious Rotweillers and pitbulls to attack anything that moves. These people, not their animals, need to be put down. Then there are the multi-catters. This is any person that has more than one cat. Multi-catting is one of the three signs of insanity (along with voices in your head and enjoying "Boston Public"). My roommate has two cats. She gets one more and she's going to end up a shut-in collecting bus schedules. The cut off limit for sanity is two cats (same goes for dogs but no one has more than two dogs unless they live on a farm and that's a whole different situation). Examine the people you know who own more than two cats and ask yourself if you'd like to spend an evening alone with him/her alone in close quarters. If you'd rather be amputated at the knee, you're getting the point.
Another fringe element is the small dog owner. Small dog owners are basically bi-curious; they're not really committed to being either cat people or dog people. See, small dogs aren't really dogs (no more than the Statlers are really brothers). If a dog's bite can't break the skin, it's not a real dog. Period. These dogs may be better than cats, but not by much.
ANOTHER THING THAT I've had plenty of time to think about while my computer is being quarantined is ACC expansion. On this subject I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is it looks like red-rover, red-rove send Miami right over. I love the idea of adding the juggernaut that is the Miami Hurricanes to the ACC. But the bad news is Miami's bringing her two homely step-sisters, Syracuse and Boston College, with her.
Here's the way I see it, the ACC is having a party and in order for us to hook up with Chynna Phillips, we've got to invite the rest of Wilson Phillips, too (Wendy Wilson would be Syracuse- she's okay, but nothing to write home about. And Carnie Wilson would be Boston College- just take one for the team, my friend).
As for the purists that don't want to see us expand because they don't want the present ACC rivalries broken up, come on. Is N.C. State vs. Georgia Tech really that important to you? And sure Maryland and UVA have become decent rivals, but I'd trade them in a heartbeat for Miami every other year. Mark my words, in 2006 when the BCS is not renewed and college football goes to a playoff system, having Miami on our schedule will mean more than Duke/Wake/UNC/Clemson combined.
Speaking of UNC/Duke/Wake, I hear a lot of talk about "the big four" (those three schools plus N.C. State) and how they can't possibly be separated lest the world stop spinning on its axis and the thong go out of style. It might be heresy to admit, but the "big four" as a collective entity don't really mean that much to me. As far as football goes (where we would only play certain teams every other year depending on how the conference is divided up), things look great with expansion. I'm sorry, but I could care less about playing Wake Forest. I'd rather play Syracuse (think about how much better it would be to play Syracuse instead of Florida State for a second time). So what if we've been playing Wake since 1912? West Virginia's been a state since 1863 and that doesn't impress me. As far as Duke goes, I like playing them in football only because they're a guaranteed "w," but I could live without the excitement of Wallace Wade Stadium every other year.
I'm sure, though, that the powers that be will see to it that the necessary football rivalries will stay intact through expansion. N.C. State will still play UNC every year, that's not going to change. But aside from that, I can live without playing every team every year. If I can live with two cats, I can live with that. On a quick side note, it's interesting that UNC is against expansion considering the fact that Syracuse would give them their only other ACC win besides Duke each year).
ACC basketball would be rough because we would only get to play each conference team once in a season. But as far as I'm concerned, it's a small price to pay. ACC basketball is, and always will be, the standard for which all college hoops are held. By expanding, we'll be able to say the same thing about college football. Expansion is not only logical; it's necessary and exciting (and not just for the sake of change). Only a cat person would disagree.
Stay safe and stay tuned…
*I started writing this article on last week's episode of "The Simpsons." Just so you know.