Attitude problem

October 7, 2003

Dear Sir,

CableVision's latest attitude toward our money is no surprise. It is amazing to see and hear CableVision's support evaporate when they begin to mess with other people's money.

Those people without cable who felt that CableVision was being bullied are getting a taste of their style, right in the pocket where it hurts - that is a good thing. The management of CableVision believe they can dictate to the people of Bermuda, not just CableVision employees, the way they are going to have it.

Needless to say, the attitude displayed by the management of CableVision does not exist in a vacuum, directed solely at their employees regardless of union affiliation, but is more pervasive and is directed at anyone they wish.

St. David's for one has been without cable for nearly two months and most likely will not have cable any time soon, the same story can be repeated all over the Island. This is no fault of CableVision's, however it is sad to see CableVision's intention to charge the public for services that are not being rendered.

They quickly fired employees who they felt were short-changing CableVision at the height of Hurricane Fabian recovery.

In contrast, the entire time Belco's service was out Belco absorbed huge equipment replacement cost and labour repair cost in getting their service back up and running without compensation from their subscribers. CableVision's service should be metered they way Belco is metered; this would no doubt lead to a quick change in attitude, response to outage and service levels.

I wonder if attitudes towards CableVision are changing now?

CRAIG WALLS

St. David's

Post-Fabian parade

October 3, 2003

Dear Sir,

In regards to R.L. of Sandys' letter referring to a possible ticker-tape parade, a post-Fabian parade will allow many of us an opportunity of extending our acknowledgement of the services given without bias to one another's needs. It reminds me of that wise statement once made in which "you have to go through hell in order to get to heaven."

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

St. George's

One-sided comments

October 4, 2003

Dear Sir,

I write in further response to 'A Dog and Person Lover' who responded to a letter written by 'Dog Lover'.

Although I did not read the letter by 'Dog Lover' I can get some idea from the comments made by 'A Dog and Person Lover' what the contents were.

Although I can somewhat see 'A Dog and Person Lover' is coming from in that there are definitely some dogs which are more feared than others, I would like to challenge that they, too, are also full of nonsense. This is not a simple black and white topic. As the owner of a particularly friendly pitbull who would never so much as attempt to attack anyone, except in the instance of protecting myself and those who I live with I am rather put out by 'A Dog and Person Lover's' one-sided comments.

I do not know if it would be fair to say that 'any dog is a potential killer' as 'A Dog Lover' said, but in actual fact if an owner is determined to have a vicious dog the way in which they raise that dog - whichever breed it might be - will definitely have a large impact on the behaviour of that dog.

To imply that the only vicious dogs are pitbulls or those that cause "parents to recoil in horror and grab their children" is quite ignorant. Perhaps the only reason this person has never heard of a poodle savaging anything is not because it doesn't have the ability to bite and cause damage - it's perhaps more because it is too small - however 'A Dog and Person Lover' should not fool themselves into thinking that a poodle is incapable of ravaging a person's ankles - or anything else they can reach.

There is a fox terrier on my road which is particularly vicious and I have had the task of separating it from my dog - remember that "oh-so-vicious-man-eating pitbull" of mine. My dog did not instigate this fight, the fox terrier did - but according to 'A Dog and Person Lover' it should have been the other way around.

"A Dog and Person Lover" also makes the statement that "some breeds are dangerous and vicious. They are bred to be so." This statement totally dismisses the statement of "Dog Lover" who said "any act of violence on the dog's part, is in fact the result of poor doggie upbringing". By definition in the Collins Dictionary, to breed means "to bring up; raise". Now, correct me if I'm wrong but the bringing up or raising is done by the owner - the dog does not bring up; raise itself.

So in actual fact to say that "some breeds are vicious and are bred to be so" actually supports the point which "Dog Lover" was trying to make. The onus for behavioural upbringing is not on the dog, but on the owner. Would it not be fair to say that children are a reflection of their upbringing? To make an analogy would it be fair to say that children from certain cultures, backgrounds or races are more prone to violence and bad behaviour?

If that is the case then do we just say that all those adults in those categories are banned from having children? No, it sounds rather silly in that context doesn't it? If the problem is to be solved, the creation of a banned breed list is not the answer. Even if such a list was to be created does 'A Dog and Person Lover' really think that there aren't certain people who will still find ways around it?

Further, what would the writer suggest that all those existing owners of these so-called vicious breeds do with their pets? Bermudians need to be educated about caring for their animals and more people need to stop poking their noses into unimportant gossip and instead start poking their nose in when they know their next door neighbour is supporting dog fights etc.

JENNIFER STERVINOU

Paget