We will get to the feedback on last week's column on cats and dogs in a moment, but first I want to comment on some curious responses to other articles I have written recently. In the past 10 days, I have been hammered by people who feel that I am too optimistic on Bermuda's future - and then bludgeoned by some who feel that I am too pessimistic.

I will state the position quite clearly, and then we will see who gets upset this time.

There have for more than 70 years been rumblings about "tax havens" (The earliest gripes I know of were published in The New York Times in 1937). Bermuda is not a tax haven. I will say it again: Bermuda is not a tax haven.

The British, the Americans, the French and the other countries want to see an end to their citizens cheating on taxes. Neither Britain nor the United States, however, wants to damage the legitimate business operations of companies and individuals in Bermuda or anywhere else. You do not declare war on your allies.

Probably, the Bermuda banks will be asked to operate to a different standard, as will banks around the world. Bermuda will co-operate with anyone when it comes to tax cheaters. The tiny benefit we earn is grossly outweighed by the reputational damage.

The prospects for the Levin Bill are less clear, but I would wager it will fail in its central goal of taxing companies that Americans own overseas. It is my belief that the insurance companies will not leave Bermuda over this issue. In the past 10 days, I have spoken face-to-face with the CEOs of seven large Bermuda insurers and reinsurers, on this very subject among others. None feel endangered.

Whatever some blogger in London might write as he lays into me and others (blogger: a writer whom no one will pay for his opinion), the argument fails on the simplest of terms. If Bermuda were "shut down" and its citizens thrown into penury - an absurd notion - the insurance companies would not go to London or New York. They would go to Switzerland or, if that too were shut down - see how far-fetched this is becoming? - they would go to Dublin.

The US closing Bermuda would damage its own interests. The likes of Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy are even not that dumb. It is not going to happen. End of story.

* * *

Since last week, it is been raining e-mail about cats and dogs like, well, cats and dogs. From a gentleman calling himself "Confused of Smith's" (readers must give their real names when they e-mail me at crombie@northrock.bm, but this newspaper is happy to use pseudonyms if asked) came this: "During these recessionary times I try to save a dollar by not purchasing The Royal Gazette on Saturdays," he wrote, espousing a very bad policy indeed. "I made an exception this past week in order to review the formal response made by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to the Budget (I must say that I found it to be quite comprehensive, although I had difficulty identifying Figure 1's 'blue line under the green line').

"It was however your Grand Theory on 'dog people' and 'cat people' which had my grey cells working overtime. I prided myself on following the logic up until I gazed at the pictures and read the byline which stated that 'Cats are savers and dogs are spenders'. This appeared to directly contradict the text and I wondered if in fact an editorial error had crept in - or were you perhaps hedging your bets and trying to have the argument both ways?"

An apology for miscaptioning the photos.

"In any event," the reader continued, "I decided to put your hypothesis to the test in our household and must report somewhat mixed results. My wife is a spender (you certainly got that right), but loves cats, which, if the text is to be believed should not be the case.

"As for myself, I am a saver and like penguins. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I should of course be delighted to nominate you for the Nobel prize. Could you advise for which category you wish to be nominated?"

Humanitarianism, perhaps, if they do not have one for Knowing It All.

A reader called Cat Protector e-mailed to say: "I just read your article about cat people vs. dog people and am glad I am a cat person. You might be interested to know that a radio station for cats exists which proves cats are indeed the smarter of the species. You can check it out at www.catgalaxymedia.com" I checked it out. It is indeed an Internet radio and TV station specifically for cats to listen to and watch. Let's move on.

Another reader wrote from Brussels: "Will a cat ever pull you out of a burning house? Or from a mountain? Or from drowning? Or warn you of an intruder?

"No," he wrote, "it will save its own *** first! Guess you've never seen dogs in the wild...or in the streets of India or Rio...they can definitely cope by themselves. Who would you rather have on a hike? On a ship, though, I would definitely go for a cat...if only to stop the rats. I only chime in as I have been having this argument with my girlfriend, who has cats."

A footnote, as it were: years ago, when I had four cats and a girlfriend, we routinely went hiking as a group on the South Shore estate we all lived in.

This arrived from a friend: "In response to your Grand Theory, I have to give a thumbs-up to the use of a King Charles spaniel, being a dog lover myself. And a lover of King Charles Cavalier spaniels in particular.

"I had two thoughts during the reading of your piece. One: I love dogs and am extremely tight with my money. I do not own a stick of furniture I have ever paid more than $75 for.

"Two: are you aware that the latest theories are that humans developed by following around packs of wolves and then either eating their leftovers or stealing their spoils? And so in fact humans developed as pets of wolves and not vice versa. Which negates the whole cat worship thing."

And finally this from a regular correspondent: "Because Martha Myron is a saver and a woman, that does not become the 'exception that proves the rule'. It would not be a 'rule' if that were the case."

I too used to be confused by the phrase but a long forgotten wise person told me this: "The phrase means that among the test examples that made up a rule, samples out of the mainstream must be included and if the rule still stood firm with these unusual 'exceptions' being tested, then it really is a 'rule'. You probably knew this, being a bright cookie, and you were probably just messing with the heads of your simple readers."

I consulted Fowler on the matter. His thoughts would double the length of this column, which would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Here is his opening paragraph:

"The exception proves the rule and phrases implying it, are so constantly introduced in argument, and so much more often with obscuring than with illuminative effect, that it is necessary to set out its different possible meanings, viz. (1) the original simple legal sense, (2) the secondary, rather complicated scientific sense, (3) the loose rhetorical sense, (4) the jocular nonsense, (5) the serious nonsense."

My correspondent's comments fall under (1); mine fell under (4) and possibly (5).

So, two accusations of Machiavellianism, and elsewhere body slams from both sides of the same issue. My cup overfloweth.