PDA

View Full Version : Low-phosphorus cat food


Charlie Wilkes
January 22nd 06, 01:10 AM
Is that the same as "urinary tract health" blends? When I first got
Tweaker, the vet said he had crystals in his urine and I was to feed
him special food for urinary tract issues. I have done so faithfully.
But he prefers the kibbles over canned food, so I now have a big bag
of Wal Mart "Special Kitty Urinary Tract Health" kibbles, which I have
been feeding him. Is this a good enough choice, or should I be
getting a better brand?

Charlie

-L.
January 22nd 06, 05:32 AM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> Is that the same as "urinary tract health" blends? When I first got
> Tweaker, the vet said he had crystals in his urine and I was to feed
> him special food for urinary tract issues. I have done so faithfully.
> But he prefers the kibbles over canned food, so I now have a big bag
> of Wal Mart "Special Kitty Urinary Tract Health" kibbles, which I have
> been feeding him. Is this a good enough choice, or should I be
> getting a better brand?
>
> Charlie

Depends on what kind of crystals he had - there are two types of
crystals that form - struvite and oxylate. I don't know anything about
Special Kitty brand food but it's probably formulated for struvite
crystals. You might want to ask the vet about the type of crystals
Tweaker had and if the formulation of the food is sufficient to control
them.
-L.

Phil P.
January 22nd 06, 08:27 AM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
> Is that the same as "urinary tract health" blends?


No. "Urinary tract health" diets are usually lower in magnesium and higher
in acidity to help prevent struvite crystals. Low phosphorus diets may be
renoprotective.


When I first got
> Tweaker, the vet said he had crystals in his urine and I was to feed
> him special food for urinary tract issues.


I assume the crystals were struvite. I'm not aware of any OTC CaOx diets.


I have done so faithfully.
> But he prefers the kibbles over canned food, so I now have a big bag
> of Wal Mart "Special Kitty Urinary Tract Health" kibbles, which I have
> been feeding him. Is this a good enough choice, or should I be
> getting a better brand?


Store brands are usually the lowest (and worst) quality food on the market.
Usually, one manufacturer makes the same food for several different stores-
only the labels and bags are different. The manufacturer wins the contract
by bidding the lowest- which means they must use the cheapest (and usually
the lowest quality) ingredients. You can usually tell if the food is
generic by the label. Most generic foods are labeled "Manufactured by XXX
for XXX" or "Manufactured For XXX by XXX" instead of "Manufactured By"
(Hill's, Nutro, Natura, etc).

The best thing would be to try to get your cat on canned food. Try adding a
little water to his dry food- add a few mls every few days so he gradually
adapts to the different texture. If he absolutely won't eat canned food, I'd
go with Hill's c/d and regular urine checks for crystals if the problem is
struvite. For CaOx crystals , I'd go with Hill's x/d.

Charlie Wilkes
January 22nd 06, 09:39 AM
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 07:27:55 GMT, "Phil P." >
wrote:
>
>The best thing would be to try to get your cat on canned food. Try adding a
>little water to his dry food- add a few mls every few days so he gradually
>adapts to the different texture. If he absolutely won't eat canned food, I'd
>go with Hill's c/d and regular urine checks for crystals if the problem is
>struvite. For CaOx crystals , I'd go with Hill's x/d.
>
He's not hard to feed, believe me. He won't refuse anything, but he
likes the kibbles better. If I give him a can of FF, he nibbles, but
he devours kibbles.

I didn't go with the Wal Mart food because it was cheap, but rather
because it was the only dry food I've ever found (in a regular store)
that specified it was for urinary tract issues.

I just got this one bag, but it's a big bag, 8lb.

I'll have to ask the vet whether the crystals were struvite or
calcium. Sounds like geology class.

Charlie

---MIKE---
January 22nd 06, 04:39 PM
Charlie wrote;

>>I now have a big bag of Wal Mart
>> "Special Kitty Urinary Tract Health"
>> kibbles, which I have been feeding
>> him. Is this a good enough choice, or
>> should I be getting a better brand?

I can't vouch for Walmart cat food but I do use a lot of their "great
value" and "equate" products and find them to be very good. Their
coffee is especially good. It's possible that their cat food could be
good also.


---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Joe Canuck
January 22nd 06, 09:16 PM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 07:27:55 GMT, "Phil P." >
> wrote:
>
>>The best thing would be to try to get your cat on canned food. Try adding a
>>little water to his dry food- add a few mls every few days so he gradually
>>adapts to the different texture. If he absolutely won't eat canned food, I'd
>>go with Hill's c/d and regular urine checks for crystals if the problem is
>>struvite. For CaOx crystals , I'd go with Hill's x/d.
>>
>
> He's not hard to feed, believe me. He won't refuse anything, but he
> likes the kibbles better. If I give him a can of FF, he nibbles, but
> he devours kibbles.
>
> I didn't go with the Wal Mart food because it was cheap, but rather
> because it was the only dry food I've ever found (in a regular store)
> that specified it was for urinary tract issues.
>

Who makes the Wal Mart food?

Can you talk to the manufacturer and get the nutritional analysis?



> I just got this one bag, but it's a big bag, 8lb.
>
> I'll have to ask the vet whether the crystals were struvite or
> calcium. Sounds like geology class.
>
> Charlie

Steve Crane
January 23rd 06, 12:30 AM
Joe Canuck wrote:
> Charlie Wilkes wrote:

> Who makes the Wal Mart food?

It will depend upon what part of the country and what week. It could be
Heinz, Doanes, or several others

> Can you talk to the manufacturer and get the nutritional analysis?

That probably won't help. First of all it would only apply to that lot
of food, the next lot might be different. Typically cat foods are not
tested for urine pH values, a critical element in this cats case.

January 23rd 06, 05:54 AM
Joe Canuck > wrote:

>Who makes the Wal Mart food?
>
>Can you talk to the manufacturer and get the nutritional analysis?

I hope it isn't Diamond.

-mhd

January 26th 06, 03:31 PM
--MIKE--- wrote:
> I can't vouch for Walmart cat food but I do use a lot of their "great
> value" and "equate" products and find them to be very good. Their
> coffee is especially good. It's possible that their cat food could be
> good also.

Wal-wart does sell fairly good products since they can squeeze just
about anyone, whether the sad workers or the manufacturers.

For low phosphorus, I noticed that the Walls sell Fancy Feast by 12 in
a case:
*Grilled Chicken Feast in Gravy 0.18% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB) 74 kcals

12 cans for $4.50 which is 37.5 cents a can, about 10 cents cheaper
than the surrounding supermarkets if purchased singularly. For a mass
product in a Wal-mart or supermarket, this is about as good as it gets.
These are THREE OUNCE cans. For the best, supermarket see below for a
Friskies that is for the urinary tract that is 0.61% phosphorus levels
and low pH.

This is not what I would call low phosphorus, it is borderline. LOW is
less than 0.80% on a Dry Matter Basis. But compared to most canned food
and especially to most Fancy Feast which is usually double this
phosphorus, it ain't bad.

The 0.18% is As Fed and is the usual way Fancy Feast covers the info.
This is not a dry matter basis which excludes the water, usually around
78% for Fancy Feast. To get DMB from AS, just divide by 0.78. Why they
keep their data so hidden I don't know. For some of their new products,
I still cannot get the phosphorus levels from Purina/Nestle which
produces all this. After three months, they did call me back for some
products. Three months! Who? What? I forgot what I had asked, having
given up on Purina/Nestle/FancyFeast.

Now Purina does make special for urinary tract, which I rarely see in
supermarkets:
Friskies Special Diet Ocean Whitefish and Tuna Dinner, 5.5 ounces, 31
kcal/oz. Special for urinary tract. 176.1 kcalories, note this is for
the 5.5 ounces, not the 3 ounce cans above. Urinary, low magnesium and
low pH, phosphorus is 0.61 DMB, 0.17% phosphorus? In previous
formulation Ocean Whitefish was superhigh phosphorus. Have to be
careful. This phosphorus is 0.61% which is nice and low, so perhaps
look for this but be careful. Many of the names sound the same, use the
same words, but are NOT the same.

Steve Crane
January 27th 06, 09:54 PM
wrote:
> --MIKE--- wrote:
> The 0.18% is As Fed and is the usual way Fancy Feast covers the info.
> This is not a dry matter basis which excludes the water, usually around
> 78% for Fancy Feast. To get DMB from AS, just divide by 0.78. Why they
> keep their data so hidden I don't know. For some of their new products,
> I still cannot get the phosphorus levels from Purina/Nestle which
> produces all this. After three months, they did call me back for some
> products. Three months! Who? What? I forgot what I had asked, having
> given up on Purina/Nestle/FancyFeast.

This may help - from Nestle Purina Veterinary Product Guide Fall 2005
All DMB values
Fancy Feast Fish & Shrimp Calcium 1.91% phos 1.56%
Fancy Feast Turkey & Giblet Feast Ca 1.74%, phos 1.53%
Fancy Feast Savory Salmon Feast Ca 1.45% phos 1.45%
Fancy Feast Ocean Whitefish & Tuna Feast Ca 1.68%, phos 1.64%
Friskies Prime Filets Turkey Dinner Ca 1.79%, phos 1.23%
Friskies Turkey & Cheese Dinner Ca 1.32%, phos 1.01%
Friskies Salmon Dinner Ca 1.28%, phos 1.28%
Friskies Sliced Chicken Dinner Ca 1.53%, phos 1.15%

for comparison purposes - all canned
Pro Plan Adult Ocean Fish & Crab Ca 2.72%, phos 2.07%
Prescription Diet Feline k/d Ca 0.61%, phos 0.34%
Prescription Diet Feline x/d Ca 0.69%, phos 0.53%
Science Diet Feline Liver & Chicken Entree Ca 0.89%, phos 0.65%

Raff
January 28th 06, 12:14 AM
In article om>,
" > wrote:


> Now Purina does make special for urinary tract, which I rarely see in
> supermarkets:
> Friskies Special Diet Ocean Whitefish and Tuna Dinner, 5.5 ounces, 31
> kcal/oz. Special for urinary tract. 176.1 kcalories, note this is for
> the 5.5 ounces, not the 3 ounce cans above. Urinary, low magnesium and
> low pH, phosphorus is 0.61 DMB, 0.17% phosphorus? In previous
> formulation Ocean Whitefish was superhigh phosphorus. Have to be
> careful. This phosphorus is 0.61% which is nice and low, so perhaps
> look for this but be careful. Many of the names sound the same, use the
> same words, but are NOT the same.

I have been unable to find the above-mentioned "Friskies Special Diet
Ocean Whitefish and Tuna Dinner" on the Friskies website, or on Google
for that matter. They do list a "Friskies Special Diet Ocean Whitefish
Diet" for urinary tract. Is it possible that they have discontinued the
formulation with tuna? Do you have any information on the Special Diet
formulation without tuna?

Raff

Phil P.
January 28th 06, 12:17 AM
"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> This may help - from Nestle Purina Veterinary Product Guide Fall 2005
> All DMB values
> Fancy Feast Fish & Shrimp Calcium 1.91% phos 1.56%
> Fancy Feast Turkey & Giblet Feast Ca 1.74%, phos 1.53%
> Fancy Feast Savory Salmon Feast Ca 1.45% phos 1.45%
> Fancy Feast Ocean Whitefish & Tuna Feast Ca 1.68%, phos 1.64%
> Friskies Prime Filets Turkey Dinner Ca 1.79%, phos 1.23%
> Friskies Turkey & Cheese Dinner Ca 1.32%, phos 1.01%
> Friskies Salmon Dinner Ca 1.28%, phos 1.28%
> Friskies Sliced Chicken Dinner Ca 1.53%, phos 1.15%

Why did you only post the Fancy Feast and Friskies diets with the highest
phosphorus content? Some FF & Friskies diets are as low and even *lower* in
phosphorus than some Science Diets.


Fancy Feast Marinated Chicken Feast:.................0.09% (AF) - 0.40%
(DMB)
Fancy Feast Marinated Salmon Feast:..................0.13% (AF) - 0.59%
(DMB)
Fancy Feast Seafood Filets Tuna & Oceanfish in Aspic: 0.16% (AF) - 0.72%
(DMB)
Fancy Feast Minced Beef Feast:..........................0.17% (AF) - 0.77%
(DMB)
Fancy Feast Sliced Beef Feast:...........................0.17% (AF) - 0.77%
(DMB)
Fancy Feast Marinated Beef Feast:.....................0.18% (AF) - 0.81%
(DMB)
Fancy Feast Grilled Chicken Feast:.....................0.18% (AF) - 0.81%
(DMB)
Fancy Feast Grilled Tuna Feast:..........................0.18% (AF) - 0.81%
(DMB)
Fancy Feast Sliced Beef & Giblets Feast:......... .0.18% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB)
Fancy Feast Grilled Turkey Feast:......................0.21% (AF) - 0.95%
(DMB)
Fancy Feast Sliced Chicken Hearts & Liver Feast: 0.21% (AF) - 0.95% (DMB)

Friskies Fine Cuts With Real Chicken in
Gravy...............................0.15% (AF)-0.68% (DMB)
Friskies Fine Cuts With Real Fish With Ocean Whitefish & Tuna....0.19%
(AF)-0.86% (DMB)
Friskies Fine Cuts With Tuna In
Sauce...........................................0. 19% (AF))-0.86% (DMB)
Friskies Prime Filets With Chicken In
Gravy...................................0.17% (AF)- 0.77% (DMB)
Friskies Seared Filets With
Salmon............................................ ....0.19% (AF))-0.86%
(DMB)
Friskies Seared Filets With Turkey &
Giblets..................................0.15% (AF))-0.68% (DMB)
Friskies Shredded Chicken & Salmon Dinner in Gravy....................0.18%
(AF) - 0.81% (DMB)
Friskies Sliced Gourmet
Grill............................................. .............0.18% (AF) -
0.81% (DMB)
Friskies Special Diet Sliced Chicken In
Gravy................................0.17% (AF)- 0.77% (DMB)

Phil P.
January 28th 06, 12:26 AM
"Raff" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
>
> I have been unable to find the above-mentioned "Friskies Special Diet
> Ocean Whitefish and Tuna Dinner" on the Friskies website, or on Google
> for that matter. They do list a "Friskies Special Diet Ocean Whitefish
> Diet" for urinary tract.

Friskies Special Diet Ocean Whitefish Diet 0.26% (AF) 1.18% DMB)


> Do you have any information on the Special Diet
formulation without tuna?

This is the only Special Diet with Ocean Whitefish that N/P lists in their
nutritional profiles.

Phil

---MIKE---
January 28th 06, 12:31 AM
Phil asked-

>>Why did you only post the Fancy Feast
>> and Friskies diets with the highest
>> phosphorus content?

Because he is trying to promote Science Diet!


---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Steve Crane
January 28th 06, 02:38 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > This may help - from Nestle Purina Veterinary Product Guide Fall 2005
> > All DMB values
> > Fancy Feast Fish & Shrimp Calcium 1.91% phos 1.56%
> > Fancy Feast Turkey & Giblet Feast Ca 1.74%, phos 1.53%
> > Fancy Feast Savory Salmon Feast Ca 1.45% phos 1.45%
> > Fancy Feast Ocean Whitefish & Tuna Feast Ca 1.68%, phos 1.64%
> > Friskies Prime Filets Turkey Dinner Ca 1.79%, phos 1.23%
> > Friskies Turkey & Cheese Dinner Ca 1.32%, phos 1.01%
> > Friskies Salmon Dinner Ca 1.28%, phos 1.28%
> > Friskies Sliced Chicken Dinner Ca 1.53%, phos 1.15%
>
> Why did you only post the Fancy Feast and Friskies diets with the highest
> phosphorus content? Some FF & Friskies diets are as low and even *lower* in
> phosphorus than some Science Diets.


Because those are the only ones Purina lists in the veterinary product
guide - you'd have to ask them why they only put those products in the
guide. I did not pick and choose but listed every one of the foods that
Purina puts in the veterinary product guide book.

January 28th 06, 04:33 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Raff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article om>,
> >
> > I have been unable to find the above-mentioned "Friskies Special Diet
> > Ocean Whitefish and Tuna Dinner" on the Friskies website, or on Google
> > for that matter. They do list a "Friskies Special Diet Ocean Whitefish
> > Diet" for urinary tract.
>
> Friskies Special Diet Ocean Whitefish Diet 0.26% (AF) 1.18% DMB)
>
>
> > Do you have any information on the Special Diet
> formulation without tuna?
>
> This is the only Special Diet with Ocean Whitefish that N/P lists in their
> nutritional profiles.
>
> Phil

Thanks for the update. I got that info I posted from them. Apparently
it's now way off base. I actually saw that item once and purchased it.

January 29th 06, 05:24 AM
(I put both lists in ascending values)

Phil P. wrote:
> This may help - from Nestle Purina Veterinary Product Guide Fall 2005
> All DMB values
Fancy Feast Marinated Chicken Feast:.................0.09% (AF) -
0.40%(DMB)
Fancy Feast Marinated Salmon Feast:..................0.13% (AF) -
0.59%(DMB)
Fancy Feast Seafood Filets Tuna & Oceanfish in Aspic: 0.16% (AF) -
0.72%(DMB)
Fancy Feast Minced Beef Feast:..........................0.17% (AF) -
0.77%(DMB)
Fancy Feast Sliced Beef Feast:...........................0.17% (AF) -
0.77%(DMB)
Fancy Feast Marinated Beef Feast:.....................0.18% (AF) -
0.81%(DMB)
Fancy Feast Grilled Chicken Feast:.....................0.18% (AF) -
0.81%(DMB)
Fancy Feast Grilled Tuna Feast:..........................0.18% (AF) -
0.81%(DMB)
Fancy Feast Sliced Beef & Giblets Feast:......... .0.18% (AF) - 0.81%
(DMB)
Fancy Feast Grilled Turkey Feast:......................0.21% (AF) -
0.95%(DMB)
Fancy Feast Sliced Chicken Hearts & Liver Feast: 0.21% (AF) - 0.95%
(DMB)

Friskies Fine Cuts With Real Chicken in Gravy...................0.15%
(AF)-0.68% (DMB)
Friskies Seared Filets With Turkey & Giblets......................0.15%
(AF))-0.68% (DMB)
Friskies Special Diet Sliced Chicken In Gravy.....................0.17%
(AF)- 0.77% (DMB)
Friskies Prime Filets With Chicken In
Gravy........................0.17% (AF)- 0.77% (DMB)
Friskies Shredded Chicken & Salmon Dinner in Gravy........0.18%(AF) -
0.81% (DMB)
Friskies Sliced Gourmet
Grill............................................. ...0.18% (AF) -0.81%
(DMB)
Friskies Fine Cuts With Real Fish With Ocean Whitefish &
Tuna..0.19%(AF)-0.86%
Friskies Fine Cuts With Tuna In
Sauce.................................0.19% (AF))-0.86% (DMB)
Friskies Seared Filets With
Salmon.......................................0.19% (AF))-0.86%(DMB)

This is great information. I tried to get this from Purina. I gave up
after getting three different values for the same product. It's very
uneven the quality of information. It's much better if this is
published. It's kind of sad that this ordinary information is only
available as a veterinary resource. Why not public information? After
all, it's only the product listing.

I'm especially put off that the values I was given over the phone for:
UPC Bar Code, 5 0000 42524, Friskies Special Diet Sliced Chicken, 5.5
ounce can, Special diet banner - well it does not even exist any more?
I guess I cannot depend on Purina for any accurate information unless
it is published in some kind of formal representation. Thanks for
putting this very basic information out there for us.

Friskies Special Diet Ocean Whitefish Diet 0.26% (AF) 1.18% (DMB). In
my notes I had this as 1.09% (DMB) in a previous formuation.

Steve Crane
January 29th 06, 07:55 PM
wrote:
> (I put both lists in ascending values)
> This is great information. I tried to get this from Purina. I gave up
> after getting three different values for the same product. It's very
> uneven the quality of information. It's much better if this is
> published. It's kind of sad that this ordinary information is only
> available as a veterinary resource. Why not public information? After
> all, it's only the product listing.

Actually I doubt the information is all that good. Unless you can match
the analyticals to the same manufacturing location and the same lot of
pet food. Any expectation that nutrient values in grocery store foods
will be the same from one lot to another is pretty much wishful
thinking. That is not the goal - or even a last place sub-goal of foods
manufactured for this market channel. It shouldn't be at all surprising
that you would get three or four or different sets of values. It would
not surprise me at all to find an analysis of 3 different lots of
precisely the same food that have a variation in nutrients by more than
50% from the highest to the lowest.

January 29th 06, 08:28 PM
Steve Crane wrote:

> wrote:
> > (I put both lists in ascending values)
> > This is great information. I tried to get this from Purina. I gave up
> > after getting three different values for the same product. It's very
> > uneven the quality of information. It's much better if this is
> > published. It's kind of sad that this ordinary information is only
> > available as a veterinary resource. Why not public information? After
> > all, it's only the product listing.
>
> Actually I doubt the information is all that good. Unless you can match
> the analyticals to the same manufacturing location and the same lot of
> pet food. Any expectation that nutrient values in grocery store foods
> will be the same from one lot to another is pretty much wishful
> thinking. That is not the goal - or even a last place sub-goal of foods
> manufactured for this market channel. It shouldn't be at all surprising
> that you would get three or four or different sets of values. It would
> not surprise me at all to find an analysis of 3 different lots of
> precisely the same food that have a variation in nutrients by more than
> 50% from the highest to the lowest.

Now I feel much better about the young sounding women [only women]
answering the phones at Purina/Nestles. I knew something was very wrong
when I got different values for the same product Fancy Feast can. And
if I asked repeatedly, well, sometimes I got the same answer and
sometimes not. So it's not their fault but the lack or indifference to
what are the phosphorus levels. Since most phosphorus levels in Fancy
Feast, I mean 55 out of 60 products, to guess roughly, aare too high,
more than 1%, for cat food, it was wishful thinking to think I could
find a relatively low phosphorus level Fancy Feast. It's possible but
now you planted a big seed of doubt coupled with my previous experience
with Purina/Nestles.

It's also funny that it was very difficult to even get the phosphorus
levels. They mail that out only in hard copy. So it's not available
digitized anywhere. If I ask on the phone, I will sometimes get
phosphorus values, sometimes not. But I had to wait for snail mail.
Why? Why not published anywhere? It's published on the vet site part of
Purina/Nestles. So is it really solid there? Phil P. was also to
reference this but I certainly cannot.

An example of NO information was the recent formulation for the "new"
Fancy Feast Marinated Morsel Salmon Feast in Gravy, which was
previously Marinated Chicken/Salmon Feast in Savory Juices.

1. When I first asked about the above, I was told, NO PHOSPHORUS levels
to be had. Why not? How can you put a product on the supermarket
shelves and not be able to tell me the amount of phosphorus? Maybe they
just do not care?

2. Then I was given different numbers from the old version of this food
when I kept asking for phosphorus level for the new Marinated Morsels.

3. Then I was told the phosphorus levels for the new version was the
same as the old version. The only difference was they made the food
smaller or something in bite sizes. But what about putting this in
writing? I still do not see this in writing anywhere. Not for the new
product.

But your explanation now makes sense of all of this. There is no way to
know for sure and with accuracy what is in the foods. Roughly I can
estimate phosphorus levels by the type of protein but that is way off
base or can be. I missed their lack of precision and just chalked it up
to the talking heads not knowing their products. Now I see no one knows
what's inside since they lack those controls for the mass supermarket.
Bad news.

I guess I'll buy more of Science Diet, Steve :)

January 29th 06, 08:49 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > This may help - from Nestle Purina Veterinary Product Guide Fall 2005

I just registered at Purina using my university affiliation. But I
cannot find the above anywhere on the site. I searched for it. Is there
yet a super secret part of the Purina Vet site that I have to look for?

John Doe
January 29th 06, 08:54 PM
"Steve Crane" <eodemolay cox.net> wrote:

> treeline12345 yahoo.com wrote:
>> (I put both lists in ascending values)
>> This is great information. I tried to get this from Purina. I
>> gave up after getting three different values for the same
>> product. It's very uneven the quality of information. It's much
>> better if this is published. It's kind of sad that this ordinary
>> information is only available as a veterinary resource. Why not
>> public information? After all, it's only the product listing.
>
> Actually I doubt the information is all that good. Unless you can
> match the analyticals to the same manufacturing location and the
> same lot of pet food. Any expectation that nutrient values in
> grocery store foods will be the same from one lot to another is
> pretty much wishful thinking. That is not the goal - or even a
> last place sub-goal of foods manufactured for this market channel.
> It shouldn't be at all surprising that you would get three or four
> or different sets of values. It would not surprise me at all to
> find an analysis of 3 different lots of precisely the same food
> that have a variation in nutrients by more than 50% from the
> highest to the lowest.

If you have any citations for that, I would like to see them.








>
>
> Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2 000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: "Steve Crane" <eodemolay cox.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
> Subject: Re: Low-phosphorus cat food
> Date: 29 Jan 2006 10:55:47 -0800
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 21
> Message-ID: <1138560947.697635.152430 o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> References: <dvi5t151at07qcdmav5qn6sj2q74df1vr0 4ax.com> <13935-43D3A74F-2201 storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net> <1138285877.330397.68590 g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1138395294.583882.292800 g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <CSxCf.7638$vU2.4664 newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> <1138508648.444355.154080 f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.19.14.20
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1138560953 12484 127.0.0.1 (29 Jan 2006 18:55:53 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:55:53 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <1138508648.444355.154080 f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.19.14.20; posting-account=HfrBWg0AAAC_TK2NmkB0e2q_0YfZ_DDY
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com rec.pets.cats.health+behav:422250
>
>

January 29th 06, 09:11 PM
John Doe wrote:
> "Steve Crane" <eodemolay cox.net> wrote:
>
> > treeline12345 yahoo.com wrote:
> >> (I put both lists in ascending values)
> >> This is great information. I tried to get this from Purina. I
> >> gave up after getting three different values for the same
> >> product. It's very uneven the quality of information. It's much
> >> better if this is published. It's kind of sad that this ordinary
> >> information is only available as a veterinary resource. Why not
> >> public information? After all, it's only the product listing.
> >
> > Actually I doubt the information is all that good. Unless you can
> > match the analyticals to the same manufacturing location and the
> > same lot of pet food. Any expectation that nutrient values in
> > grocery store foods will be the same from one lot to another is
> > pretty much wishful thinking. That is not the goal - or even a
> > last place sub-goal of foods manufactured for this market channel.
> > It shouldn't be at all surprising that you would get three or four
> > or different sets of values. It would not surprise me at all to
> > find an analysis of 3 different lots of precisely the same food
> > that have a variation in nutrients by more than 50% from the
> > highest to the lowest.
>
> If you have any citations for that, I would like to see them.

You can cite me. I just posted that I asked way more than three times
for the phosphorus levels and received more than three different
replies. Why? It's all a bit of a joke, apparently. There is no
consistant monitoring except at a very crude level for these Fancy
Feast and comparable products. I cannot trust them now except not to
make poisonous food. Whoppee.

I just accessed the vet part of Purina/Nestle. Very disappointing. I
did not even see phosphorus levels in their main program they put out
for the vets to use. It just listed the kcals which is better than
nothing. But pretty more. It's what I would release for laymen not for
vets. Very childlike program. Idiot level.

Where do you even find phosphorus levels on their vet site? I cannot
find Phil P's Vet Guide from Purina/Nestle that he found nor yours
except for the crude listing of a few Fancy Feasts and only the kcals.
Did you go to another place for the phosphorus levels? I assume you
used the same primitive Vet Guide that I found. Or is that the same as
Phil P's? Can't be since his listed actual elements like phosphorus. Is
there a special part of their site then? I registered for the vet part
of the site.

January 29th 06, 09:25 PM
Raff wrote:
> I have been unable to find the above-mentioned "Friskies Special Diet
> Ocean Whitefish and Tuna Dinner" on the Friskies website, or on Google
> for that matter. They do list a "Friskies Special Diet Ocean Whitefish
> Diet" for urinary tract. Is it possible that they have discontinued the
> formulation with tuna? Do you have any information on the Special Diet
> formulation without tuna?
> Raff

I just don't know now. It was in my notes and I remember buying it.
Maybe it was the last of a series they discontinued. Maybe I am losing
my "mind." It's so difficult to do anything with Purina/Nestle that I
am about to completely give up on this company. If they cannot publish
what they have, then screw them. I don't find any reliable info when I
telephone and ask in person, when I search their web site, when I
search their vet web site. They are a Swiss company and they act like a
Swiss bank. All smiles and screw you when you really need them. It's
the royal run-around. You just don't know what's true. How can I trust
them now? Remember Africa and messing around with the formula for
babies' milk? Was that not Nestle? If they do that to human beings,
what would they do to cats? Okay, I am angry. Time to let this all go.
Take a deep breath.

Here's what Phil P. published and it's too damn high for a special
diet. It's even too damn high for a regular diet:

Friskies Special Diet Ocean Whitefish Diet 0.26% (AF) 1.18% (DMB)

1.18% phosphorus is almost 1.20% which is about double the phosphorus
you would regularly like to use, especially in an older cat. Bums. And
this they call a SPECIAL DIET. Special Diet for death. Okay, that's a
tad harsh. Maybe a Special Diet except sky high in phosphorus?

> Do you have any information on the Special Diet formulation without tuna?
This is the only Special Diet with Ocean Whitefish that N/P lists in
their nutritional profiles. Phil

I'm repeating what Phil replied to you because you missed it,
apparently. Or did I?

John Doe
January 29th 06, 09:54 PM
"treeline12345 yahoo.com" <treeline12345 yahoo.com> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> "Steve Crane" <eodemolay cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > treeline12345 yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> (I put both lists in ascending values)
>> >> This is great information. I tried to get this from Purina. I
>> >> gave up after getting three different values for the same
>> >> product. It's very uneven the quality of information. It's much
>> >> better if this is published. It's kind of sad that this ordinary
>> >> information is only available as a veterinary resource. Why not
>> >> public information? After all, it's only the product listing.
>> >
>> > Actually I doubt the information is all that good. Unless you can
>> > match the analyticals to the same manufacturing location and the
>> > same lot of pet food. Any expectation that nutrient values in
>> > grocery store foods will be the same from one lot to another is
>> > pretty much wishful thinking. That is not the goal - or even a
>> > last place sub-goal of foods manufactured for this market channel.
>> > It shouldn't be at all surprising that you would get three or four
>> > or different sets of values. It would not surprise me at all to
>> > find an analysis of 3 different lots of precisely the same food
>> > that have a variation in nutrients by more than 50% from the
>> > highest to the lowest.
>>
>> If you have any citations for that, I would like to see them.
>
> You can cite me. I just posted that I asked way more than three times
> for the phosphorus levels and received more than three different
> replies. Why? It's all a bit of a joke, apparently. There is no
> consistant monitoring except at a very crude level for these Fancy
> Feast and comparable products. I cannot trust them now except not to
> make poisonous food. Whoppee.

I'm talking about a citation to a study.

Like is there a PubMed for animals?







>
>
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prod igy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!ne wscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.co m!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com !not-for-mail
> From: "treeline12345 yahoo.com" <treeline12345 yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
> Subject: Re: Low-phosphorus cat food
> Date: 29 Jan 2006 12:11:47 -0800
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 48
> Message-ID: <1138565507.892158.91120 g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> References: <dvi5t151at07qcdmav5qn6sj2q74df1vr0 4ax.com> <13935-43D3A74F-2201 storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net> <1138285877.330397.68590 g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1138395294.583882.292800 g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <CSxCf.7638$vU2.4664 newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> <1138508648.444355.154080 f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1138560947.697635.152430 o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <Xns975A8D7D4C62Dfollydom 207.115.17.102>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.242.180.131
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1138565512 22957 127.0.0.1 (29 Jan 2006 20:11:52 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <Xns975A8D7D4C62Dfollydom 207.115.17.102>
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716 Firefox/1.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.242.180.131; posting-account=kqfINg0AAAA8H-ycJLgqG6TFoFACZ1iS
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com rec.pets.cats.health+behav:422258
>

January 30th 06, 12:31 PM
John Doe wrote:

> >> "Steve Crane" <eodemolay cox.net> wrote:
> >> > Actually I doubt the information is all that good. Unless you can
> >> > match the analyticals to the same manufacturing location and the
> >> > same lot of pet food. Any expectation that nutrient values in
> >> > grocery store foods will be the same from one lot to another is
> >> > pretty much wishful thinking. That is not the goal - or even a
> >> > last place sub-goal of foods manufactured for this market channel.
> >> > It shouldn't be at all surprising that you would get three or four
> >> > or different sets of values. It would not surprise me at all to
> >> > find an analysis of 3 different lots of precisely the same food
> >> > that have a variation in nutrients by more than 50% from the
> >> > highest to the lowest.

> >> If you have any citations for that, I would like to see them.
> >
> > You can cite me. I just posted that I asked way more than three times
> > for the phosphorus levels and received more than three different
> > replies. Why? It's all a bit of a joke, apparently. There is no
> > consistant monitoring except at a very crude level for these Fancy
> > Feast and comparable products. I cannot trust them now except not to
> > make poisonous food. Whoppee.
>
> I'm talking about a citation to a study.
>
> Like is there a PubMed for animals?

PubMed includes quite a few veterinarian or animal studies.

There are veterinarian resources that you can try. Someone might have
run a study. I don't know if cat food makers are obligated to really
put out the phosphorus levels. I kind of doubt it for the mass
supermarket since most of the manufacturers I call just laugh at me
when I ask for calcium and phosphorus levels. I could look up whether
the phosphorus levels have much to do with the AAFCO or official cat
food requirements. I doubt it since most of the mass foods are super
high in phosphorus. Science Diet is an exception. Royal Canin and Iams
may also be exceptions. But these are not supermarket companies
although I see Iams and am not sure about that company. I did get a lot
of info from Science Diet and Royal Canin. I get almost zip from
Purina/Nestle. mostly talking heads, nice people, but clueless as a
rule. And I get absolutely zip from the vets on the staff at
Purina/Nestle. Nothing. Not a single answer as to what they are putting
into their foods, well, the phosphorus levels. Nothing.

And the subject is not necessarily one that scientists conduct studies
of. But I do not know since I am not yet motivated to search. Since the
poster works for Science Diet and is thus part of the industry, he
might have a valid point. Of course, others will say he is biased. But
that may be part of the package. In any case, his explanation dovetails
why I have had so much trouble finding out information from these
manufacturers. And in Purina/Nestle's case, the information was often
different. Now I know why. Either someone is not terribly compentent or
the info changes from batch to batch or no one really cares all that
much. In any case, red flags are raised. If someone cannot be bothered
to answer a question easily, then it could be that the question is not
really important to that company. Nestle does not have a great
reputation for consideration in this regard - although the deaths of
the infants in Africa might incline them now to be a tad more socially
responsible. That was about pushing a substitute for mother's milk that
was not sufficient for life [i forget why, contained soy and/or just
not able to support life as natural breast milk]? A corporation that
big and ruthless is not going to be all that motivated about little
pussy cats and their phosphorus levels.

The end of your posts have an awful lot of info attached to them. Is
that a function of webtv or can you trim that info? I trim your info
here but maybe it's a function of your news program. Something like
under Options, turn off Detailed Info? But with webtv, it may not be
under your control at all? On my other newsreaders, there's a slot for
turning off HTML which does the same sort of thing, except in that
case, it's adding HTML code at the end instead of information. I got
it. It's the Headers in a way, giving out where your, what do you call
it, the train, the tracking, I don't recall the exact words, but it
tracks your internet addressing and routes.

Phil P.
January 30th 06, 01:38 PM
"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> >
> > Why did you only post the Fancy Feast and Friskies diets with the
highest
> > phosphorus content? Some FF & Friskies diets are as low and even
*lower* in
> > phosphorus than some Science Diets.
>
>
> Because those are the only ones Purina lists in the veterinary product
> guide -

But Steve, you *know* Fancy Feast and Friskies make *many* lower phosphorus
diets. You should have mentioned that fact rather than imply all their diets
are high in phosphorus.

Phil P.
January 30th 06, 01:39 PM
> wrote in message

I cannot
> find Phil P's Vet Guide from Purina/Nestle that he found

Steve posted that, not me.

PawsForThought
January 30th 06, 02:51 PM
wrote:
Nestle does not have a great
> reputation for consideration in this regard - although the deaths of
> the infants in Africa might incline them now to be a tad more socially
> responsible. That was about pushing a substitute for mother's milk that
> was not sufficient for life [i forget why, contained soy and/or just
> not able to support life as natural breast milk]? A corporation that
> big and ruthless is not going to be all that motivated about little
> pussy cats and their phosphorus levels.

You should see the movie "The Constant Gardner".

January 30th 06, 06:52 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> But Steve, you *know* Fancy Feast and Friskies make *many* lower phosphorus
> diets. You should have mentioned that fact rather than imply all their diets
> are high in phosphorus.

That's a toughie. On one hand, he works for Science Diet, a rather
small company compared to Nestle[Purina] that specializes in food for
felines and canines. That company actually provides listings that
almost all the others cannot be bothered to. So if he wishes to
advocate, well, okay, a little provocation may be good. And you are
here to point out any questions about all of this. And it's good, also,
in a way, that Science Diet has Steve here. At least they care enough
to squawk.

On the other hand, I cannot see how a handful of their many product
constitute *many* lower phosphorus diets. I don't know much about this
stuff. But I counted up, just once, all the varieties of Fancy Feast,
and I counted somewhere around 60. Out of that 60, I found 5, based on
your posts and my readings, that I would consider acceptable phosphorus
levels for a feline diet. 5/60 = 1/12 which is, wait, 8.3%. That's not
a lot. For the average uninformed consumer, there is a 1 in 12 chance
of picking up a Fancy Feast that is reasonably safe in phosphorus
levels. That's not good. See later. I biased this counting because I
discounted beef products. See below.

If people only buy Fancy Feast for one meal a week, then, okay, not
much of a problem. If buying for everyday, well, what happens to a cat
on a diet where the phosphorus levels go start around usually 1% to 2%?
And the recommended or better levels are less than 1%, maybe around
0.7% for most cats, to be on the safe side?

Friskies has about 44 varieties. Maybe 9 are okay with 4 below 0.8%.

Fancy Feast has about 9 okay too. I count only 5 since I discard all
those with beef in it. Don't laugh. Mad cow disease and all that and my
cat won't touch the beef. Smart kitty. But 9/60 is a better count, so
that's 3/20 or 15% chance, almost double my original number of 8.3%. In
any case, the odds are against picking cans that are low in phosphorus.
A very good chance to pick cans that are high. Does it matter? It might
and some seem to think so. I might have miscounted Fancy Feast now.
They may have less varieties than they used to. They are repackaging
the brand.

I will search for the brands you list that are low. But it's all a
hassle since most of these products are high in phosphorus. I have to
inspect each can and most of the cans are very high in phosphorus. Does
it matter? I keep remember one vet when I discussed this with him
briefly. He said that all this is quite complex. But he does not see at
the vet hospital, [and this was a huge 24 hour/7 day vet hospital with
many vets and a trauma unit], does not see cats with urinary problems
who are fed Science Diet or Iams.

I remember that. We were discussing weight loss and not urinary tract
problems. This was just an aside that came out of our brief discussion
at a pet show. He was representing the animal hospital, not Science
Diet or Iams. But who knows. He seemed sincere and that is his
impression based on his experience, which may have been extensive. I
don't know. But after trying to get information from Nestle/Purina, I
come back to an old cliche:

If information is difficult to obtain or not readily available, then
that's a clear sign, all by itself, of something that is not good and
necessitates further scrutiny.

Phil P.
January 30th 06, 07:43 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> > But Steve, you *know* Fancy Feast and Friskies make *many* lower
phosphorus
> > diets. You should have mentioned that fact rather than imply all their
diets
> > are high in phosphorus.
>
> That's a toughie.

No, its actually simple.


On one hand, he works for Science Diet, a rather
> small company compared to Nestle[Purina] that specializes in food for
> felines and canines. That company actually provides listings that
> almost all the others cannot be bothered to.

I know you can't be including N/P because they publish complete nutrient
profiles for all their diets. In fact, many companies will send you the
nutrient profiles of their diets if you ask for them.

You don't really think Hill's has all their diets analyzed, do you? They're
only required to test the "lead" member of the product family. Haven't you
every wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never change? Or do
you actually believe every batch of every diet is exactly the same?


> On the other hand, I cannot see how a handful of their many product
constitute *many* lower phosphorus diets

Must be a pretty big hand! About 20 of NP diets are lower to acceptable
phosphorus levels-- that's more diets than most companies' entire product
lines.

Anna via CatKB.com
January 30th 06, 10:13 PM
<Haven't you ever wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never
change?

Actually I just noticed on Hill's site that the phosporus in the canned
Gourmet Beef formula for Seniors has risen from .52 DMB to .69 DMB. Wonder
why? Must have had a formula change. I know that their canned foods are now
supposed to be juicier but I don't see how that could cause the phos. to be
higher now.


Anna

--
Message posted via CatKB.com
http://www.catkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/cat-health/200601/1

January 30th 06, 11:59 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> I know you can't be including N/P because they publish complete nutrient
> profiles for all their diets. In fact, many companies will send you the
> nutrient profiles of their diets if you ask for them.
>
> You don't really think Hill's has all their diets analyzed, do you? They're
> only required to test the "lead" member of the product family. Haven't you
> every wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never change? Or do
> you actually believe every batch of every diet is exactly the same?

I believe that their batches are more the same than Nestle/Purina's
would be. Why? Am I wrong here? Are both companies really the same in
their accuracies or inaccuracies?

And where do you find the published profiles for their diets of
Nestle/Purina or NP?

I cannot find anything published. Anywhere. I went to their web site.
Useless. I went to their vet web site. Almost useless. I spent about 5
hours on the telephone. Tedious and varied answers.

I can get some sort of printed material but that is unpublished.
Publishing means in a public forum, certainly for a company. A private
snail mail is better than nothing but closer to unpublished than
published. And nothing easily viewed and digitized so far for the
public.

Is there some vet forum where you find this published?

I did ask. For their new Marinated Morsels, I could not get anything
for three months and then only by a phone call. I have yet to see this
in published or even printed format. I trust them but I wish they would
publish where I, as a mere consumer, can see the stuff without having
to pull teeth. And even then, it's quite uneven. I just do not know
what is true. True at a real level, not a talking head get rid of the
consumer level.I was interested in their dry food for weight
management. They have two versions, one old and one new. It took a
long, long discussion to figure out kcals/gram. I tried to explain to
the talking head how this could be inferred but the Purina person did
not understand conversions. I tried to explain that for weight
management it helps to know things down to the gram. That's the way in
science.

I gather you have trust then in NP? That's good to know. I feel they
are just too big and well, like most big companies, they are not too
interested in putting out the details. And when I talked to them by
phone, the details were not the same for the same product. They are
just not geared up for public dissemination. Do you have special
privileges from your experience and expertise that allows you to get
the information better?

> Must be a pretty big hand! About 20 of NP diets are lower to acceptable
> phosphorus levels-- that's more diets than most companies' entire product
> lines.

That's true. But 75% are not lower and most people do not understand
about phosphorus levels. Well, most people I talk to don't know about
it. After medical problems, then they know about it. I was delighted
that you pointed out their good products. That helps a big deal.

I see your point. For a big company, they make an effort. But it's not
in the same class as Royal Canin, Science Diet, and so forth, at least
not for me in finding out info. I even participated in groups giving
suggestions to Purina. They were not pleased I suggested putting real
info on the labels.

When things quiet down for me, I might look into making my own food. If
I go by the USDA data base, and vitamin/minerals bought specifically
and listed, I probably could do better. I have access to the software,
free to all by the way, which lists about what, 82 nutrients for maybe
2000 foods? Now that's thorough. And I can discuss with the USDA
scientists the methods of their analyses. This is good. The amino
acids, the essential amino acids, the vitamins, the minerals, the fatty
acids broken down by carbon chains. Not bad. In fact, wonderful for a
government agency. And every year they improve and add more nutrients
to be analyzed. Will this help my cat? I bet, and I wish, that when
done, I will know those phosphorus levels very well. Not perfectly
since chickens vary. But it will be a big undertaking for me. Currently
I have software that can sort and maximize or minimize about 60
nutrients of any recipe for about 1500 foods. In other words, you want
more luteins in your diet, no problema.

I appreciate your answering my post. You probably disagree?

About companies. I did not have much luck with PetGuard or Newman's.
Have you tried? I just tried to get the calcium/phosphorus balance.
Later I saw this was silly since if they meet AAFCO, it's probably a
reasonable balance. Knowing the absolute amounts besides the
proportions was not possible to get.

January 31st 06, 12:05 AM
Anna via CatKB.com wrote:
> <Haven't you ever wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never
> change?
>
> Actually I just noticed on Hill's site that the phosporus in the canned
> Gourmet Beef formula for Seniors has risen from .52 DMB to .69 DMB. Wonder
> why? Must have had a formula change. I know that their canned foods are now
> supposed to be juicier but I don't see how that could cause the phos. to be
> higher now.
> Anna

I noticed that their formulae change as their product line changes.
That's good because it implies testing was done.

My uneducated guess is that phosphorus goes up as proteins levels go
up. They might be using beef that is higher in protein or extracted in
such a way that proteins go up or just using more beef. I just looked
at the USDA and different cuts have different phosphorus values. Maybe
they are keeping out the mad cow parts and using more of the muscle
parts?

But your main question is a good one. If more liquid, one would expect
less phosphorus. Assuming that the essay methods remain the same.

But that's a big jump, .17/.52 = 33% increase. Anybody know the answer?

PawsForThought
January 31st 06, 02:47 PM
wrote:

> About companies. I did not have much luck with PetGuard or Newman's.
> Have you tried? I just tried to get the calcium/phosphorus balance.
> Later I saw this was silly since if they meet AAFCO, it's probably a
> reasonable balance. Knowing the absolute amounts besides the
> proportions was not possible to get.

I have gotten nutrient profiles from both PetGuard and Newman's and
never had any problems. Nature's Variety and Wysong also were very
forthcoming with info (and even sent me food samples). In fact, I
can't think of any petfood company that didn't want to supply such
information. I don't know, maybe you're contacting the wrong
departments or something?

January 31st 06, 05:49 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > About companies. I did not have much luck with PetGuard or Newman's.
> > Have you tried? I just tried to get the calcium/phosphorus balance.
> > Later I saw this was silly since if they meet AAFCO, it's probably a
> > reasonable balance. Knowing the absolute amounts besides the
> > proportions was not possible to get.
>
> I have gotten nutrient profiles from both PetGuard and Newman's and
> never had any problems. Nature's Variety and Wysong also were very
> forthcoming with info (and even sent me food samples). In fact, I
> can't think of any petfood company that didn't want to supply such
> information. I don't know, maybe you're contacting the wrong
> departments or something?

I am not that dumb, close though. I did contact PetGuard and I know it
because they sent me a free sample, Rabbit as I recall. Which my Cat-hy
HATED. But it was not possible to get locally so interesting to see if
she would like "game."

Nope, they did not supply me the levels of phosphorus and calcium. Can
you put that here if you got it? I'm just fed up with trying.

I asked several times. At least once or twice by telephone. And about
the same by emails. They said they would talk to the "lab," but
nothing.

Maybe in the last year or two, they got their act together and are now
giving out the nutrient profiles. And by this I mean calcium and
phosphorus levels at a minimum.

With Newman's, it was the same story. It could be I asked these
companies when they were just starting up. Certainly Newman's was in
the beginning of their operation. Not sure when PetGuard ramped up. But
they never got back to me when they got their acts together.

If they published as you say, then maybe my asking did some good. I
could not ask the wrong department because there was only one
department :(

877-PETGUARD
wait, let me try right now... nutrient analysis, can go to web site,
"turn it over to the technical department, phosphorus, calcium..." says
the lady answering the phone.

same answer as before, ask the tech department... give me a call back.
maybe this time they will call back.

i went to the web site. those nutrient profiles are minimal. they do
not list calcium or phosphorus levels. they do not even list the
kilocalories!!!

Your post gave me paws for thought. Am I that stupid... Sometimes.

If you meant the web site for the nutrient profiles, that is not good
enough for me by a long shot. I was specifically discussing phosphorus
levels. Did they send you the phosphorus levels then?

I'll stand by my original statement so far. Except for Science Diet and
maybe Royal Canin, almost all these other companies do not publish
their nutrient profiles to any useful degree. They leave out even the
kilocalories and phosphorus contents!

I guess we have different standards for nutrient profiles. For me, a
nutrient profile actually lists the nutrients. And phosphorus is an
important nutrient since it has been fingered as connected to renal
disease in felines. So to not list phosphorus is not good. A big no-no
:)

And why does the talking head not have this info at her fingertips? Why
have to ask the tech department? Hmmm, maybe it changes from batch to
batch?

Thanks for trying to help with your post. But it's hopeless. I can't
get any intelligent info here. Beam me up Scotty...

January 31st 06, 06:16 PM
wrote:

http://www.peteducation.com/article_print.cfm?cls=1&articleid=657
AAFCO Cat Food Nutrient Profiles = the complete nutrient profile from
AAFCO.

There's about 41 nutrients listed, including phosphorus among the
minerals. And 12 amino acids. Now that's not too shabby. But to get
this info from the companies. Yeah right. Send me your complete AAFCO
profile. Well, I could try. Maybe it's easier to ask for all the
nutrients rather than one?

When Paws..., you asked for the nutrient profile, did you get the
entire AAFCO profile then? Maybe I am asking for not enough then? I
should say the entire AAFCO profile, please?

Now nobody then publishes the entire AAFCO nutrient profile. I would
never have guessed that the AAFCO nutrient profile was rather complete
from all the web sites and sources so far. They seem to publish just
the few nutrients that make them look good. If the companies maintain
they meet the AAFCO guidelines, should not this information be readily
available? How can they meet the guidelines but not publish how they
are meeting the guidelines, ie, the actual lab results? Are they
bluffing? Don't know. Wonder now what exactly are these "meetings of
guidelines." One sample per year of one product? And too much is not
done. Like 0.8% phosphorus is fine for a growing cat, and 0.5%
phophorus minimum for a regular cat, but what about 2.5% phosphorus? as
too much?

Something is wrong. Is it me? Or is business as usual?

January 31st 06, 06:40 PM
wrote:

http://www.peteducation.com/article_print.cfm?cls=1&articleid=657
AAFCO Cat Food Nutrient Profiles = the complete nutrient profile from
AAFCO.

There's about 41 nutrients listed, including phosphorus among the
minerals. And 12 amino acids. Now that's not too shabby. But to get
this info from the companies. Yeah right. Send me your complete AAFCO
profile. Well, I could try. Maybe it's easier to ask for all the
nutrients rather than one?

PetGuard called me back. The lady seemed irritatated so I did not ask
for more nutrients. For Turkey and Rice, the phosphorus level is 0.17%
as fed. Since it's 76% moisture, that's 0.23% dry matter basis. Maybe
this is why it's not published. It's actually lower, too low, way too
low but? I was worried about too high but too low is also something to
consider. The minimums from AAFCO are 0.5% for a cat not needing growth
and 0.8% if growth is needed. But AAFCO or Drs. Foster and Smith, can't
say if this is their thought or AAFCO's, says phosphorus being too low
is no problema for carnivores:

["Phosphorous deficiency is a significant problem in herbivores and is
probably the most common mineral nutrition deficiency present in
animals worldwide. However, phosphorous deficiency occurs very
infrequently in cats and dogs. In fact, excessive dietary phosphorous
which accelerates the progression of renal failure is much more
common."]

are not a problem for meat eating cats and dogs so don't worry. Still,
I guess this is one problem from natural foods, their levels might be
different from AAFCO as opposed to those who combine things or use by
products, like Science Diet. It's a tough choice. Natural stuff or go
for a diet that is more regulated?

So my original idea is possibly correct. Whenever information is
difficult or tedious to get, maybe there is a good reason for that
which is to obfuscate, ie, you get the idea.

Anna via CatKB.com
January 31st 06, 07:00 PM
I emailed Newman's last year re: phosphorus and they replied either the same
day or the next. I think they said .9 DMB. That's what it says too at
www.webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dry.htm too. I remember being impressed by
their quick response as I had also emailed Dick Van Patten's Natural Balance
the same day and they never replied to me at all. I've since found out their
phosphorus is a whopping 1.6 DMB by phoning them - that's okay for a kitten
but not for an adult and definitely not a senior! Don't know why that
company thinks all cats, both kittens and adults should be fed the same food;
they do it with the dog food too. I think that they go by that old belief
that things should be the same way it was in "the wild" where animals all ate
the same thing no matter what age they were, but how long did animals live
in the wild? Not too long. I shudder to think of all the seniors with
undiagnosed kidney disease eating that high phosphorus food.

Anna

--
Message posted via http://www.catkb.com

PawsForThought
January 31st 06, 09:01 PM
wrote:
I am not that dumb, close though. I did contact PetGuard and I know it
> because they sent me a free sample, Rabbit as I recall. Which my Cat-hy
> HATED. But it was not possible to get locally so interesting to see if
> she would like "game."

I don't think you're dumb at all. You seem to have more interest than
probably most petowners. I tried rabbit with my cats and they didn't
care for it either (this was whole rabbit though but they still didn't
like it and it grossed me out having to cut it up :(

> Nope, they did not supply me the levels of phosphorus and calcium. Can
> you put that here if you got it? I'm just fed up with trying.
>
> I asked several times. At least once or twice by telephone. And about
> the same by emails. They said they would talk to the "lab," but
> nothing.

I contacted Petguard several years ago so perhaps they've changed.
Back then they just mailed me the information and it looked pretty
complete. Unfortunately I don't have it anymore or I'd be more than
glad to send it to you.

> With Newman's, it was the same story. It could be I asked these
> companies when they were just starting up. Certainly Newman's was in
> the beginning of their operation. Not sure when PetGuard ramped up. But
> they never got back to me when they got their acts together.
>
> If they published as you say, then maybe my asking did some good. I
> could not ask the wrong department because there was only one
> department :(

Newman's also mailed me the information. It was maybe a year ago or
so. Nature's Variety emailed me their info. I don't know, sometimes
these companies have employees who aren't well-versed in supplying
information. You would think that it wouldn't be so hard to do.

> If you meant the web site for the nutrient profiles, that is not good
> enough for me by a long shot. I was specifically discussing phosphorus
> levels. Did they send you the phosphorus levels then?

They did.

> Thanks for trying to help with your post. But it's hopeless. I can't
> get any intelligent info here. Beam me up Scotty...

LOL. That's one of the reasons I make my own catfood, so I don't have
to deal with these companies.

Lauren

PawsForThought
January 31st 06, 09:22 PM
wrote:
> wrote:
>
> http://www.peteducation.com/article_print.cfm?cls=1&articleid=657
> AAFCO Cat Food Nutrient Profiles = the complete nutrient profile from
> AAFCO.
>
> There's about 41 nutrients listed, including phosphorus among the
> minerals. And 12 amino acids. Now that's not too shabby. But to get
> this info from the companies. Yeah right. Send me your complete AAFCO
> profile. Well, I could try. Maybe it's easier to ask for all the
> nutrients rather than one?

That's how I did it. I remember one company did ask what was I exactly
looking for? I said phosphorous and calcium (because I wanted to see
that they had the correct ratio of phos to calc). Nature's Variety
sent me about 45 or 50 nutrients in a nice chart. There was one
company though that refused to give me the information, saying they
only supply it to vets. What a bunch of b.s. I thought. Wish I could
remember which company it was.

> When Paws..., you asked for the nutrient profile, did you get the
> entire AAFCO profile then? Maybe I am asking for not enough then? I
> should say the entire AAFCO profile, please?

Yeah I would ask for the AAFCO profile, and hopefully they will give it
to you.

> Now nobody then publishes the entire AAFCO nutrient profile. I would
> never have guessed that the AAFCO nutrient profile was rather complete
> from all the web sites and sources so far. They seem to publish just
> the few nutrients that make them look good. If the companies maintain
> they meet the AAFCO guidelines, should not this information be readily
> available? How can they meet the guidelines but not publish how they
> are meeting the guidelines, ie, the actual lab results? Are they
> bluffing? Don't know. Wonder now what exactly are these "meetings of
> guidelines." One sample per year of one product? And too much is not
> done. Like 0.8% phosphorus is fine for a growing cat, and 0.5%
> phophorus minimum for a regular cat, but what about 2.5% phosphorus? as
> too much?

I do know the AAFCO are the bare minimums. I honestly don't understand
why petfood companies don't just put real nutrient information on the
label, instead of the guaranteed analysis which is pretty meaningless.
Here's some info to give you an idea about AAFCO's testing:

"The Testing Protocols For Providing An Unqualified Representation of
Nutritional Adequacy For A Dog Or Cat Food" are spelled out in the
book, Official Publication, 1994, Association of American Feed Control
Officials Incorporated.

For adult maintenance dog food to pass the AAFCO test:

8 dogs older than 1 yr. must start the test.
At start all dogs must be normal weight & health.
A blood test is to be taken from each dog at the start and finish of
the test.
For 6 months, the dogs used must only eat the food being tested.
The dogs finishing the test must not lose more than 15% of their body
weight.
During the test, none of the dogs used are to die or be removed becasue
of nutritional causes.
6 of the 8 dogs starting must finish the test.

Their protocols require blood tests which screen only four different
blood values: RBC number, hemoglobin, packed cell volume and serum
albumin. The average veterinary "basic blood profile" screens over
twenty-five blood values."

Steve Crane
February 1st 06, 02:41 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> But Steve, you *know* Fancy Feast and Friskies make *many* lower phosphorus
> diets. You should have mentioned that fact rather than imply all their diets
> are high in phosphorus.

Phil - keeping "track" of fancy feast is hardly anything I pay ANY
attention to. Somebody asked for some values and gave them what I had -
there was no intention to do anything else but provide what I had.

Steve Crane
February 1st 06, 02:45 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> You don't really think Hill's has all their diets analyzed, do you? They're
> only required to test the "lead" member of the product family. Haven't you
> every wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never change? Or do
> you actually believe every batch of every diet is exactly the same?

Let me correct you on that one Phil _EVERY_ 1,000th can and 5,000th
pound is indeed analyzed. No if's, no but's, no exceptions.

Steve Crane
February 1st 06, 02:51 AM
PawsForThought wrote:
> wrote:
> I do know the AAFCO are the bare minimums. I honestly don't understand
> why petfood companies don't just put real nutrient information on the
> label, instead of the guaranteed analysis which is pretty meaningless.
> Here's some info to give you an idea about AAFCO's testing:

I'm shocked - we're actually going to agree completely on something :-)
I would also much prefer it if the laws permitted and required
manufacturers to list at least the top 15 or so nutrients on a DMB
basis so comparison was simple for everyone.

Steve Crane
February 1st 06, 02:55 AM
John Doe,
Pub Med is also for animals. I've used it since the mid 80's, back
when it was FTP protocol and you got a bill from the Department of
Commerce every quarter. I'm not sure what it is you are looking for in
term citations? A citation that marketing is marketing and that a
company would produce a food with a marketing idea in mind????

February 1st 06, 04:18 AM
Steve Crane wrote:
> Phil P. wrote:
> > You don't really think Hill's has all their diets analyzed, do you? They're
> > only required to test the "lead" member of the product family. Haven't you
> > every wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never change? Or do
> > you actually believe every batch of every diet is exactly the same?
>
> Let me correct you on that one Phil _EVERY_ 1,000th can and 5,000th
> pound is indeed analyzed. No if's, no but's, no exceptions.

That's good to know. What nutrients are tested? Not all 40+ or more in
the AAFCO?
And if you do test all 46 or 50 if doing kcals, carbs, and so on, how
do you test? Is there an expensive device list a spectrometer or
individual tests or both? And is it possible to get the full analysis?
That would be a first! I'm really curious! I was involved with those
doing the research in getting this all computerized way back when. I
still have the software to min and max all these nutrients, in any
which way, any amino acid, any vitamin, any mineral, any combo. I found
a commercial program but they cost a fortune and for the clinician
only.

Amino Acids or Proteins:
Arginine
Histidine
Isoleucine
Leucine
Lysine
Methionine-cystine
Methionine
Phenylalanine-tyrosine
Phenylalanine
Threonine
Tryptophan
Valine
Taurine (extruded)
Taurine (canned)

Fat:
Linoleic acid
Arachidonic acid

Minerals:
Calcium
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sodium
Chloride
Magnesium
Irond
Copper(extruded)
Copper(canned)
Manganese
Zinc
Iodine
Selenium

Vitamins:
Vitamin A
Vitamin D
Vitamin E
Vitamin K
Vitamin B1 (thiamin)
Vitamin B2 (riboflavin)
Vitamin B5 (pantothenic acid)
Vitamin B3 (niacin)
Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine)
Folic Acid
Biotin
Vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin)
Choline

Phil P.
February 1st 06, 03:14 PM
"Anna via CatKB.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> <Haven't you ever wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never
> change?
>
> Actually I just noticed on Hill's site that the phosporus in the canned
> Gourmet Beef formula for Seniors has risen from .52 DMB to .69 DMB.

Are you sure about that? I don't ever remember Senior Gourmet Beef being
that low in phosphorus.



Wonder
> why? Must have had a formula change. I know that their canned foods are
now
> supposed to be juicier but I don't see how that could cause the phos. to
be
> higher now.

Could be if Hill's used digest as a flavor enhancer.

Phil P.
February 1st 06, 03:15 PM
"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > You don't really think Hill's has all their diets analyzed, do you?
They're
> > only required to test the "lead" member of the product family. Haven't
you
> > every wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never change? Or
do
> > you actually believe every batch of every diet is exactly the same?
>
> Let me correct you on that one Phil _EVERY_ 1,000th can and 5,000th
> pound is indeed analyzed. No if's, no but's, no exceptions.

Sure, Steve. Every 5,000th pound of what? ;)

Phil P.
February 1st 06, 03:16 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> > I know you can't be including N/P because they publish complete nutrient
> > profiles for all their diets. In fact, many companies will send you the
> > nutrient profiles of their diets if you ask for them.
> >
> > You don't really think Hill's has all their diets analyzed, do you?
They're
> > only required to test the "lead" member of the product family. Haven't
you
> > every wondered why the nutrient values of their diets never change? Or
do
> > you actually believe every batch of every diet is exactly the same?
>
> I believe that their batches are more the same than Nestle/Purina's
> would be. Why?


My guess is because you want to. Even though I think SD are the probably
the best formulated diets on the market- if their nutrient levels are true-
I still think the "science" in the Science Diet name is also an advertising
gimmick.



>
> And where do you find the published profiles for their diets of
> Nestle/Purina or NP?


NP. I called NP and asked them to send me the nutrient profiles for all of
their diets... and they did!


>
> I cannot find anything published. Anywhere.


Try calling them and simply ask them to send you the nutrient profiles for
their diets. Its really very simple.



I spent about 5
> hours on the telephone.


If you talk like you post, I believe it! ;) It only took me about a minute
to
ask them to send me the nutrient profiles for all of their diets. I
received the nutrient profiles for all the Fancy Feast, Friskies and Purina,
canned and dry diets about a week later.




> Tedious


I'm sure it was for them. :)


>
> I can get some sort of printed material but that is unpublished.


No, that *is* published. N/P publishes nutrient profiles for all of their
diets. All you have to do is ask.


> Publishing means in a public forum,


No, "publish" means "To prepare and issue for public distribution or sale."
Books are published, newspapers are published, magazines are published, N/P
nutrient profiles are published- IOW, prepared for public distribution. I
think I know what publish means since I'm a printer and most of my clients
are publishers.



> I gather you have trust then in NP?


As much as a pet food manufacturer can be trusted. Purina R&D is equal if
not exceeds SD. SD just advertises it more because "science" is their
advertising gimmick.


Do you have special
> privileges from your experience and expertise that allows you to get
> the information better?


No. I just ask short and simple and direct questions. If I have technical
questions, I don't ask receptionists or telephone operators.

Phil P.
February 1st 06, 03:17 PM
"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> > But Steve, you *know* Fancy Feast and Friskies make *many* lower
phosphorus
> > diets. You should have mentioned that fact rather than imply all their
diets
> > are high in phosphorus.
>
> Phil - keeping "track" of fancy feast is hardly anything I pay ANY
> attention to.

Sure seems like you pay a lot of attention to anything about their diets
that could be perceived as negative. You always seem to know a lot about
other manufacturers diets- especially the things that could be perceived as
negative.

February 1st 06, 07:21 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> > I believe that their batches are more the same than Nestle/Purina's
> > would be. Why?

> My guess is because you want to. Even though I think SD are the probably
> the best formulated diets on the market- if their nutrient levels are true-
> I still think the "science" in the Science Diet name is also an advertising
> gimmick.

That seems contradictory on your part. Are not the SD the best
formulated diets because they take the time to test the batches? It
would seem they go hand in hand although it's possible to have one and
not the other. I guess I could start testing the pH as that's easiest.
If they published their test results from batch to batch, now that
would be WONDERFUL. Are you listening Science Diet?

Also, SD may be doing a gimmick but they still publish in a public
arena, called the internet :), for all to see and provide far more info
than any other company. So the Science in Science Diet is somewhat
justified to me. It's not all talk but there is some walk the walk also
here. They act like a Science Diet company!

Additionally, I have had at least one vet tell me SDs give far fewer
diseases [one said none back in 2002] of the urinary tract than well,
other companies, with the exception of IAMS [same vet I mentioned in
another post]. I have never had any vet suggest this was the case with
Purina. Since Purina makes many products, in fact the majority of their
Fancy Feast and Friskies have too much phosphorus in those cans for
felines. There is a real risk that an arbitrary selection of Purina
foods will increase the chances for urinary disease, the opposite of
SD's canned foods. This is my genuine conclusion concerning SD and NP.
Am I incorrect?

Tell me if I am wrong in my suppositions.


> > And where do you find the published profiles for their diets of
> > Nestle/Purina or NP?
>
> NP. I called NP and asked them to send me the nutrient profiles for all of
> their diets... and they did!

I know now what to ask for. I was sent the nutrient profiles but still
it was missing for months a product released before the profiles were
released. Marinated Morsels.

I do not see why they cannot put this up on their website. I absolutely
do not see any reason for their not putting this information up on
their veterinarian/professional web site.

Do you? Tell me why you would agree, if you do, with not publishing on
the web this vital and important information.


> If you talk like you post, I believe it! ;) It only took me about a minute
> to
> ask them to send me the nutrient profiles for all of their diets. I
> received the nutrient profiles for all the Fancy Feast, Friskies and Purina,
> canned and dry diets about a week later.

It's very kind of you to point out I have trouble communicating. Why
don't you point out my mistakes, in your opinion, that I am making in
this particular post's communication style?

> > Tedious
> I'm sure it was for them. :)

Of course it was. They, as a rule, are not pleased that I am asking for
information they do not have and do not comprehend. This is very
stressful for both of us. And I can be impatient trying to form the
words and sentences to get through the barriers. Do you remember your
saying you don't have the patience any more in a post today or
yesterday?

Even customer service reps do not understand the differences between As
Fed and Dry Matter Basis. I try to explain that it's simple division,
As Fed/Dry Matter, but I gather simple division was skipped in their
job's education. I feed badly that this key fact cannot be made plain.
In fact, one of my posts contains an error because I reported what
PetGuard told me. But they divided incorrectly, using the moisture
instead of the dry matter. The correct answer is 0.7% phosphorus in
PetGuard's Turkey and Rice on a Dry Matter Basis. They do not have low
or high phosphorus, but right in the middle. 0.17/0.24 = 0.7 [0.24 or
24% is dry matter if 76% is moisture so the proper denominator to use
was 0.24, and not 0.76]


> No, "publish" means "To prepare and issue for public distribution or sale."
> Books are published, newspapers are published, magazines are published, N/P
> nutrient profiles are published- IOW, prepared for public distribution. I
> think I know what publish means since I'm a printer and most of my clients
> are publishers.

I see what you mean. And you are correct from a legal point of view,
well, certainly from the copyright point of view. Once it's on paper,
then it's published and copyrighted to some degree. But in research, it
is often said this is not so unless it's in a formal publication.
Papers are "unpublished" unless formally done by a press or magazine.
That's what I was referring to. But that's not true for non-research
items? However, I think results put out in snail mail and never in a
public place in the internet nor in a library accessible place is not
quite "publishing" for a major manufacturer of foods.

I gather you are running the presses or doing the preparations for
publishers then? Do you give any discounts for feline posterities?

> > I gather you have trust then in NP?
>
>
> As much as a pet food manufacturer can be trusted. Purina R&D is equal if
> not exceeds SD. SD just advertises it more because "science" is their
> advertising gimmick.

That may be. But the matter still stands that the bulk, the majority of
products by Purina in the supermarkets contain high, way too high,
amounts of phosphorus. This cannot be said of Science Diet. I am
referring to Fancy Feast and Friskies canned foods. I have not looked
much into NP's dry foods but the dry foods seem much better in this
regard.


> Do you have special
> > privileges from your experience and expertise that allows you to get
> > the information better?
>
> No. I just ask short and simple and direct questions. If I have technical
> questions, I don't ask receptionists or telephone operators.

Then can you enlighten me to your secret method for jumping over the
operators? Do you ask for the vets or technicians? Since you run a web
site and a facility for cats for a long time, I would assume you have
the right to do so. I am just a one cat person who asks too many
questions.

Royal Canin did connect me to a vet after I exhausted the operators
with questions they could not conceivably entertain. I think I was
asking about the formula for energy requirements or such. So they quite
pleasantly referred me to the vet who seemed delighted to discuss
formulae at an "advanced" level. That was good for me too. I found
talking to a vet a comfortable experience and pleasant for both of us
since I did not have to choose my words and phrases beforehand.

Steve Crane
February 3rd 06, 03:40 PM
wrote:
> Phil P. wrote:
> > "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > This may help - from Nestle Purina Veterinary Product Guide Fall 2005
>
> I just registered at Purina using my university affiliation. But I
> cannot find the above anywhere on the site. I searched for it. Is there
> yet a super secret part of the Purina Vet site that I have to look for?

Purina publishes two "booklets" which they hand out at veterinary
conferences. The first is called "Purina Veterinary Diets, Veterinary
Product Guide" and the last date of publication is August 2004 on the
back cover. However the book has added materials through Jan 2006 stuck
inside to include the new Purina Dental Diets launched in Jan of 2006.
This 8.5 X 11 book contains therapeutic products - Purina UR, NF, OM -
etc, Pro Plan and ONE products and provides the basic nutrient
information, feeding guides, claims, therapeutic use (for therapeutic
diets only), and ingredients listing. The second book is a 8 X 8
booklet entitled "Different Clients, Different Needs, Nestle Purina
Product Guide" It contains much the same info but on grocery store
products like Purina Cat Chow, Friskies, Fancy Feast etc, but obviously
only a selected number of those products. It lists only 4 versions of
Fancy Feast, 4 versions of Friskies canned. The version I have is
dated "Effective Fall 2005". To my knowledge the onlyplace I have ever
seen these distributed is at veterinary conferences around the country.

Phil P.
February 5th 06, 03:58 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > > I believe that their batches are more the same than Nestle/Purina's
> > > would be. Why?
>
> > My guess is because you want to. Even though I think SD are the
probably
> > the best formulated diets on the market- if their nutrient levels are
true-
> > I still think the "science" in the Science Diet name is also an
advertising
> > gimmick.
>
> That seems contradictory on your part.

No it isn't. Wellness's, Innova's, California Natural's, Flint River Ranch's
advertising gimmicks are " human grade ingredients" (implying human grade
ingredients are inherently better for cats), Nutro's is "no by-products"
(implying by-products are a bad thing); Science Diets's is "scientifically
formulated" (implying other brands aren't). *Every* pet food in the world
is "scientifically formulated".

Are not the SD the best
> formulated diets because they take the time to test the batches?

What makes you so sure SD tests every batch? Pet food manufacturers aren't
required to test every batch. The
company is only required to test the *lead* diet of a *product family* of
diets.

You don't seem to understand that the published nutrient profile for a
particular diet you buy off the shelf may not be the actual nutrient content
of *that* particular diet. IOW, my naive friend, the actual nutrient
levels in a diet you buy off the shelf may vary by as much as 50% from the
diet that was actually tested. Without having the diet analyzed by an
independent lab, its virtually impossible to be reasonably sure that the
diet actually contains the nutrient levels- or even the ingredients, or
absence of ingredients- that the company says it does.


> Why
don't you point out my mistakes, in your opinion, that I am making in
this particular post's communication style?

About 7 kb. lol.

As usual, you're over complicating a very simple issue.
All you have to do is call all the pet food companies that you're interested
in and ask them to send the nutrient profiles of their diets. Then simply
choose the diets whose nutrient levels meet your requirements. That's it.

Steve Crane
February 5th 06, 09:03 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> My guess is because you want to. Even though I think SD are the probably
> the best formulated diets on the market- if their nutrient levels are true-
> I still think the "science" in the Science Diet name is also an advertising
> gimmick.

Certianly there is some very limited truth to that. But the source of
the name might be of interest. In the late 50's and early 60's pet
research facilities had a problem. If they were going to test a vaccine
or a drug they had to insure that all else in the animals life didn't
change over the course of the test. In those days that was not possible
for any food then available. At the request of companies like Eli Lilly
and Pfizer Hill's produced brown bag products which they guaranteed
would be precisely the same during the duration of the test period.
Eventually the "science" diet used in these test facilities was made
available to vets for retail purposes.

I disagree that the use of the term Science" is an advertising
"gimmick". No other company does the research Hill's does, and has
done, for over 50 years. No other company has anywhere near the number
of "Firsts" on the market of a therapeutic food. Nobody - not even
Mars/Waltham/Royal Canin/IVD and Purina and IAMS/Eukanuba COMBINED have
as many therapeutic firsts to market. Those firsts to market don't
happen because the research and the science isn't there. Therapeutic
"first to markets" happen because the basic research and science is
there and continues to be there.

> As much as a pet food manufacturer can be trusted. Purina R&D is equal if
> not exceeds SD. SD just advertises it more because "science" is their
> advertising gimmick.

Oh give me a break - Purina has ZERO grade 1 evidence based clinical
trials on ANY of their foods. Purina has exactly 2 products in the
therapeutic arena that can be considered firsts - DM which was
identical to canned Science Diet Feline Growth and Purina HA - the
first hydrolyzate on the market. There isn't any parameter that I can
think of where Purina could even remotely be considered "equal". Unless
development of marketing campaigns and TV advertising is your measure
of equality.

Phil P.
February 5th 06, 11:04 PM
"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > My guess is because you want to. Even though I think SD are the
probably
> > the best formulated diets on the market- if their nutrient levels are
true-
> > I still think the "science" in the Science Diet name is also an
advertising
> > gimmick.
>
> Certianly there is some very limited truth to that. But the source of
> the name might be of interest. In the late 50's and early 60's pet
> research facilities had a problem. If they were going to test a vaccine
> or a drug they had to insure that all else in the animals life didn't
> change over the course of the test. In those days that was not possible
> for any food then available. At the request of companies like Eli Lilly
> and Pfizer Hill's produced brown bag products which they guaranteed
> would be precisely the same during the duration of the test period.
> Eventually the "science" diet used in these test facilities was made
> available to vets for retail purposes.

Really? Are you sure about that or did you just make it up? Didn't Mark
Morris, Sr. found the company in the early 40s by designing prescription
diets for dogs? Later, Hill's funded him to develop other diets and
eventually bought him out.



>
> I disagree that the use of the term Science" is an advertising
> "gimmick".


Come on, now. Sure it is! Why not "Morris Cat/Dog Food"-- since he's the
man who started it all. Or "Hill's Cat/Dog Foods"? "Science Diet"
certainly is an advertising gimmick.


>No other company does the research Hill's does,


Doncha mean no other company funds as many studies for their products as
Hill's does?


>
> > As much as a pet food manufacturer can be trusted. Purina R&D is equal
if
> > not exceeds SD. SD just advertises it more because "science" is their
> > advertising gimmick.
>
> Oh give me a break - Purina has ZERO grade 1 evidence based clinical
> trials on ANY of their foods.

Yep. Hill's has the best studies money can buy.

We need a few other pet food companies' salesmen in the group for balance.

February 6th 06, 07:16 AM
Phil P. wrote:

---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part :)
-----

> "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> > Certianly there is some very limited truth to that. But the source of
> > the name might be of interest. In the late 50's and early 60's pet
> > research facilities had a problem. If they were going to test a vaccine
> > or a drug they had to insure that all else in the animals life didn't
> > change over the course of the test. In those days that was not possible
> > for any food then available. At the request of companies like Eli Lilly
> > and Pfizer Hill's produced brown bag products which they guaranteed
> > would be precisely the same during the duration of the test period.
> > Eventually the "science" diet used in these test facilities was made
> > available to vets for retail purposes.
>
> Really? Are you sure about that or did you just make it up? Didn't Mark
> Morris, Sr. found the company in the early 40s by designing prescription
> diets for dogs? Later, Hill's funded him to develop other diets and
> eventually bought him out.

> > I disagree that the use of the term Science" is an advertising
> > "gimmick".

> Come on, now. Sure it is! Why not "Morris Cat/Dog Food"-- since he's the
> man who started it all. Or "Hill's Cat/Dog Foods"? "Science Diet"
> certainly is an advertising gimmick.

> >No other company does the research Hill's does,

> Doncha mean no other company funds as many studies for their products as
> Hill's does?

> > Oh give me a break - Purina has ZERO grade 1 evidence based clinical
> > trials on ANY of their foods.
>
> Yep. Hill's has the best studies money can buy.
>
> We need a few other pet food companies' salesmen in the group for balance.

That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to
fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening.

I asked for phosphorus levels from both the vets and nutritionists
listed in Purina's list of four experts on their web site. I never
received any factual reply. I received one reply that someone would get
back to me, but that person never did. I sent another reply which was
never answered. I went to an Expo where Purina was the main event. Very
nice. But could not extract any real info but the performing felines,
using Clicker Training techniques, were too cute in their circus
routines. This is part of the Friskies thing. Quite pleasant. Purina
had at least one vet there and some techs, but not any real info but
lots of free samples. As I said before, at this same expo, 2002 or
2003, a vet from the extremely large vet hospital in my area, mentioned
that he does not see urinary problems from cats fed Science Diet or
Iams. Just an observation, no more, no less, but interesting to me.

At this point, I would prefer to see a company fund clinical diet
explorations than nothing at all. At least it's a start.

And the interesting science that has come out of food and drug
companies in regards to caloric restriction [kind of related here but
this is something we quibbled about before] also was by serendipity and
drug companies and animal feeding. Very interesting. The life of the
animals was doubled. That's right. DOUBLED for emphasis ;)

But it was kind of by accident in the beginning or so said the lab
animal coordinator at the Penn vet school to me. The animals, rats or
mice, I forget which now, had their feed cut in half so they would live
long enough to finish the drug companies' experimental trials. Not
anything noble. Just coincidental. But that's the name of the game.
Life expectancy. Can't do much if dead or so I'm told, regardless of
those who believe in paradise. Yeah right.

You mentioned dogs or someone did. Who made the diet for the rats or
mice that I am talking about? It's a standard lab rat diet, as I
recall, but it's been 20 years since I read the details. Would this
work on dogs or cats? Why not. So far, any cat that I have seen who is
over 21+ years of age was not fat, but au contraire, very light in
bodyweight. What have been your observations in this regard? Anybody?

The animals survived twice as long as expected on half the
kilocalories. They were fed every other day or received roughly half
the food. The drug companies got their results and were delighted, with
results, not with uncovering a field of science about life expectancy.
Well, maybe there were excited. If people were to live longer, then
they can take more drugs, longer, and make more money for the drug
companies. But cutting kilocalories does not make drug companies rich,
so maybe they were not that interested in the serendipitous finding.

And that's the way it is... or was... Just read that the "average
height of an American woman, for example, is 5 feet 4 inches, and the
average weight is 164.3 pounds, according to a study released in 2004
by the National Center for Health Statistics."

I don't think caloric restriction will go over well now in the USA. For
me to become "average" I would have to gain 60 pounds. Me and my feline
will have slim corpses :)

PawsForThought
February 6th 06, 12:54 PM
wrote:
> That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to
> fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening.

and that's a bad thing? Personally, I don't want to read biased posts
by petfood salesmen that have an agenda to push their product. That's
what tv commercials are for, or their websites, or telephone contact.
I don't want to read posts from salesmen spamming the group, but that's
just me.

---MIKE---
February 6th 06, 01:26 PM
>>Just read that the "average height of an
>> American woman, for example, is 5
>> feet 4 inches, and the average weight is 164.3 pounds, according to a
study released in 2004 by the National Center for Health Statistics."
I don't think caloric restriction will go over well now in the USA. For
me to become "average" I would have to gain 60 pounds. Me and my feline
will have slim corpses :)


---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

---MIKE---
February 6th 06, 01:28 PM
>>Just read that the "average height of an
>> American woman, for example, is 5
>> feet 4 inches, and the average weight
>> is 164.3 pounds, according to a study
>> released in 2004 by the National
>> Center for Health Statistics." For me
>> to become "average" I would have to
>> gain 60 pounds. Me and my feline will
>> have slim corpses :)

It appears that the average woman is obese!


---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Switch
February 6th 06, 01:55 PM
---MIKE--- wrote:

> It appears that the average woman is obese!

reminds me of something James used to say

"I like'm fat! I like'm proud, haaaaay"

Phil P.
February 6th 06, 03:34 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
>
> ---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part :)

Very much snipping on my part.


> > We need a few other pet food companies' salesmen in the group for
balance.
>
> That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to
> fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening.


Interesting perception. OTOH, perhaps the other companies feel its
inappropriate to fund a salesman to hustle their products in pet newsgroups
and denigrate other companies.



> I asked for phosphorus levels from both the vets and nutritionists
> listed in Purina's list of four experts on their web site. I never
> received any factual reply.

You might get a factual reply if you try to keep your request under 1000
words. ;)


I received one reply that someone would get
> back to me, but that person never did.

The person was probably so tired after reading your garrulous message that
he fell
asleep before s/he could reply.

February 6th 06, 04:55 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
> wrote:
> > That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to
> > fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening.
>
> and that's a bad thing? Personally, I don't want to read biased posts
> by petfood salesmen that have an agenda to push their product. That's
> what tv commercials are for, or their websites, or telephone contact.
> I don't want to read posts from salesmen spamming the group, but that's
> just me.

Lauren, there's a big difference between providing information and
"spamming" newsgroups. You didn't have a problem with it last summer
when a Solid Gold rep came into one of the ngs and posted a statement.
IIRC, you were glad that it was a "clarification". If I took your POV,
I could consider that "spam". Similarly, I recall you being quite
pleased when that vicious Ann Martin came into the ngs and started
cussing and swearing about commercial pet food companies.

It all depends on your perspective. You are anti-Hill's, so you take
one point of view. Another person who wants information so that they
can make up their own mind, may appreciate having someone who knows
what they're talking about BECAUSE they work for a specific company.

Steve Crane
February 6th 06, 09:39 PM
wrote:
> Phil P. wrote:
>
> ---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part :)
> -----

> That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to
> fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening.

One minor correction - nobody funds my participation here either - this
is entirely my own personal activity. I got into this long ago because
I observed some blatant erroneous comments that I chose to respond to.

Steve Crane
February 6th 06, 09:49 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> Really? Are you sure about that or did you just make it up? Didn't Mark
> Morris, Sr. found the company in the early 40s by designing prescription
> diets for dogs? Later, Hill's funded him to develop other diets and
> eventually bought him out.

Yes, the company started with Mark Morris Sr and the first Prescription
k/d - the development of SCIENCE DIET - which is what I was pretty
clearly talking about was as stated earlier. Based on requests from
Pfizer, Eli Lilly, etc.

> Come on, now. Sure it is! Why not "Morris Cat/Dog Food"-- since he's the
> man who started it all. Or "Hill's Cat/Dog Foods"? "Science Diet"
> certainly is an advertising gimmick.

Because the food was NOT originally developed for retail sale - it was
developed for the "science" industry. In point of fact before Hill's
and Dr. Morris entered into a partnership, Burton Hill was already
manufacturing a pet food of his own. Long since abandoned in the early
50's.


> >No other company does the research Hill's does,
>
>
> Doncha mean no other company funds as many studies for their products as
> Hill's does?

Not hardly

> Yep. Hill's has the best studies money can buy.

Good - at least you recognize that we have the best studies, regardless
of funding them at various universities or doing them in house.
Considering how quick everyone is to dismiss a peer reviewed published
clinical study if it's done entirely "in house" why on earth would
anyone be surprised that these studies are commonly done in Veterinary
University settings?

February 6th 06, 10:02 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
> wrote:
> > That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to
> > fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening.
>
> and that's a bad thing? Personally, I don't want to read biased posts
> by petfood salesmen that have an agenda to push their product. That's
> what tv commercials are for, or their websites, or telephone contact.
> I don't want to read posts from salesmen spamming the group, but that's
> just me.

Never a post spamming the group. Did you ever see one? If you did,
reproduce it. I do not recall a commercial post, per se, from him and a
rep in a newsgroup is better than no rep when dealing with info that
only a rep may have.

He's offered info that no one else has and that's helpful. Aside from
Phil P., he has offered technical information that I do not see coming
from anyone else. That's really important so I want to see him stay and
to even invite others to post who represent other food companies. At
this point, I cannot get ANY INFO BIASED OR NOT for the most part from
most companies. It's a real hassle involving telephoning when it should
be just available on a web site. Simple stuff, even, like kilocalories
becomes a chore and probably impossible for most people who cannot make
personal calls during the day at their jobs. So someone from Science
Diet answering my post that I can get quickly is much, much better than
a phone call and much jawing during the day.

I prefer biased information rather than no information. In research,
that is par for the course. So it's fairly trivial for me to separate
the wheat from the chaff. And there's not much effort since what we
have discussed so far, in my limited experience here, has been obvious
and open and easily dissected.

So reconsider your post which seems angry in contrast to the low key
posts that came from the rep. Compared to other newsgroups, he has been
quite good and helpful. If you find something wrong in your opinion,
then like Phil P., take issue with him on that specific post. Fair
enough?

Steve Crane
February 7th 06, 01:12 AM
PawsForThought wrote:
> wrote:
> > That's just the point. The other companies cannot even be bothered to
> > fund a salesman in a cat tech support group. The silence is deafening.
>
> and that's a bad thing? Personally, I don't want to read biased posts
> by petfood salesmen

Biased - of course I am and I haven't ever suggested otherwise.
Challenge the information I provide if you disagree with it. Post some
clinical trial that refutes what I opine here. I'm more than open to a
good debate. Am I biased of course, how could I not be after 20+ years
in the industry? But rather than the usual name calling - which is
precisely what you have done AGAIN for the umpteenth time - refute my
facts, provide us some good data that supports an opposing opinion.
That's the value here. Name calling is nothing more than a clear sign
that somebody has lost the debate and has no logic left to work with.

February 7th 06, 03:37 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> > ---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part :)
>
> Very much snipping on my part.

and snippety too.

> You might get a factual reply if you try to keep your request under 1000
> words. ;)

one word, kilocalories, was too much, garrulous? not at all. i felt bad
& badly that i had to explain to a food company that kilocalories per
gram or per ounce is a very good way to specify calories. most of the
world uses kcals/gram and purina should too :)


> The person was probably so tired after reading your garrulous message that
> he fell asleep before s/he could reply.

The message was too short and not at all garrulous since I was using a
filled-in form on the web site which did not allow for many words, even
if so inclined.

Do not make the hasty generalization that how I post here is how I talk
on the telephone. I use a different part of my brain for oral
communication - one that has different damage.

PawsForThought
February 7th 06, 06:36 AM
wrote:
> Never a post spamming the group. Did you ever see one?

Yes, for the past several years. Obviously you haven't been here that
long and you would have seen the posts. I'm not quite that naive

> I prefer biased information rather than no information.

I see that :) I don't know why you're having such a hard time geting
nutrient profiles from these companies. I've never had a problem.
Perhaps you need to go past speaking to the company's receptionist?
Maybe word your request differently? I don't know. Again, I've never
had a problem in the past with getting this kind of information. It
was an easy and quick process.

> So reconsider your post which seems angry in contrast to the low key
> posts that came from the rep.

Hardly angry, just realistic. I prefer unbiased information. you
don't.

PawsForThought
February 7th 06, 06:50 AM
wrote:
> Lauren, there's a big difference between providing information and
> "spamming" newsgroups. You didn't have a problem with it last summer
> when a Solid Gold rep came into one of the ngs and posted a statement.
> IIRC, you were glad that it was a "clarification".

Against my better judgment of replying to you, I am posting this so
TreeLine can see just why I was happy to see the Solid Gold rep post.
She/he can check out the pertinent posts at:

http://tinyurl.com/8xg87

Here's Steve Crane's post, followed up by a Solid Gold rep, whose only
purpose in posting was to defend the outlandish crap Steve Crane was
posting:

8. Steve Crane
Mar 9 2005, 10:48 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health
From: "Steve Crane" > - Find messages by this author
Date: 9 Mar 2005 19:48:56 -0800
Local: Wed, Mar 9 2005 10:48 pm
Subject: Re: Wellness and who is is actually made by?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

Solid Gold no less! That's an interesting one. Many years ago when I
was a kid working in a grocery store the owner of Solid Gold was having
an affair with the owner of the store. We ended up with a stack of the
stuff that eventually went buggy. Not the foods fault, the cost was
just too high for the grocery store clientele. Many years later I was
in court when the owner faced charges of frauduluent labelling. A
couple weeks ago I stopped by the "global headquarters" in Santee
California. It was really sad. The place used to be spotless and clean.
Today the headquarters looks like the most run down back alley pet
store you ever went into. Paint peeling off the windows, trash
everywhere, old raggedy papers stacked in the corner. It really is a
shame. "


25. Solid Gold
Mar 11 2005, 5:44 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health
From: "Solid Gold" > - Find messages by this
author
Date: 11 Mar 2005 14:44:19 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 11 2005 5:44 pm
Subject: Re: Wellness and who is is actually made by?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

Steve,

I work for Solid Gold and this post was brought to my attention by a
few of our customers.

900 Vernon Way is our corporate office, which is located in a new
industrial center. We have only been at this address for a year and a
half. Before this, we were based at another location in El Cajon. Our
Vernon Way office is not a place you would just "stop in" as we do not
conduct any physical business with the public in this office.

I believe you are probably referring to the small retail store Sissy
runs located on Cuyamaca. The retail store is very eclectic and is full
of things Sissy has collected over the years such as wall hangings,
art, photos of her animals and customer animals, etc. This is only
Sissy's retail store. All Solid Gold business in conducted from our
corporate offices.

I just wanted to clear up the confusion and do not wish to discuss or
debate the merits of Solid Gold pet foods or any other pet food on an
internet forum.

Best regards,
Solid Gold "

February 7th 06, 08:36 AM
PawsForThought wrote:
<<snipped>>

Here's all that one needs to know. Lauren did not produce one single
evidence of Steve Crane "spamming" this ng, as she alleges. Yet she
has no problem producing a lengthy post from almost a year ago
regarding Solid Gold. Lauren, obviously you can do a search of the
archives. Why not post "evidence" of the "spam" that you allege? You
can't, because it doesn't exist. This is an instance of "put up, or
shut up".

BTW, you don't prefer unbiased information, because links that you've
posted in the past always refer people to websites that support YOUR
point of view (which certainly isn't unbiased). For example, you've
posted links to articles that take a favorable opinion of the raw food
method of feeding. You've also pointed people into the direction of
"holistic" veternarians and sung the praises of such vets who take that
particular point of view. Please don't insult our collective
intelligence by claiming that you prefer "unbiased" points of view.

Phil P.
February 7th 06, 02:50 PM
"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> > Really? Are you sure about that or did you just make it up? Didn't Mark
> > Morris, Sr. found the company in the early 40s by designing prescription
> > diets for dogs? Later, Hill's funded him to develop other diets and
> > eventually bought him out.
>
> Yes, the company started with Mark Morris Sr and the first Prescription
> k/d - the development of SCIENCE DIET


No, Steve, k/d was the first *Hill's Prescription Diet* product, *not* a
"Science Diet" product. The consumer Science Diet line came out years later
as a spin off of the Prescription Diet line. Hill's Prescription Diets
don't say "Science Diet" anywhere on the labels.





- which is what I was pretty
> clearly talking about was as stated earlier. Based on requests from
> Pfizer, Eli Lilly, etc.


Lilly doesn't make veterinary drugs.


>
> > Come on, now. Sure it is! Why not "Morris Cat/Dog Food"-- since he's
the
> > man who started it all. Or "Hill's Cat/Dog Foods"? "Science Diet"
> > certainly is an advertising gimmick.
>
> Because the food was NOT originally developed for retail sale - it was
> developed for the "science" industry.


That's a stretch! The first Hill's diets were *prescription* diets sold only
through vets to pet owners. That's not exactly the "science industry".



In point of fact before Hill's
> and Dr. Morris entered into a partnership, Burton Hill was already
> manufacturing a pet food of his own. Long since abandoned in the early
> 50's.

Burton Hill owned a *packing* company (Hill Packing Company). Morris and
Hill went into partnership because Morris couldn't meet the demand for the
prescription diets. Morris was manufacturing and packaging the diets
himself.


> > >No other company does the research Hill's does,
> >
> >
> > Doncha mean no other company funds as many studies for their products as
> > Hill's does?
>
> Not hardly
>
> > Yep. Hill's has the best studies money can buy.
>
> Good - at least you recognize that we have the best studies, regardless
> of funding them at various universities


The first c/d studies weren't too good, were they, Steve? Someone at Hill's
forgot to include taurine in the feline formula and as a result, a lot of
cats developed dilated cardiomyopathy and died.

For every dollar Hill's spends on studies, they spend 50 cents telling
everybody about it!

Phil P.
February 7th 06, 02:56 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > > ---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part
:)
> >
> > Very much snipping on my part.
>
> and snippety too.
>
> > You might get a factual reply if you try to keep your request under 1000
> > words. ;)
>
> one word, kilocalories, was too much, garrulous? not at all. i felt bad
> & badly that i had to explain to a food company that kilocalories per
> gram or per ounce is a very good way to specify calories. most of the
> world uses kcals/gram and purina should too :)

One word? You just said you "had to explain to a food company that
kilocalories per gram or per ounce is a very good way to specify calories."
That had to take you at least an hour! lol.

You're not getting the results you want because you annoy the people that
you're asking for information. You babble and complicate
very simple issues.


> > The person was probably so tired after reading your garrulous message
that
> > he fell asleep before s/he could reply.
>
> The message was too short and not at all garrulous since I was using a
> filled-in form on the web site which did not allow for many words, even
> if so inclined.
>
> Do not make the hasty generalization that how I post here is how I talk
> on the telephone.

I'd bet your friends answer your calls only from their home phones.

PawsForThought
February 7th 06, 04:32 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> Good - at least you recognize that we have the best studies, regardless
> > of funding them at various universities

> The first c/d studies weren't too good, were they, Steve? Someone at Hill's
> forgot to include taurine in the feline formula and as a result, a lot of
> cats developed dilated cardiomyopathy and died.

Very interesting. I was in the dog groups this morning and happened
upon this post:

4. Steve Crane
Feb 6, 7:27 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health
From: "Steve Crane" > - Find messages by this author

John Wesley wrote:
> Does anyone have any recomendations good or bad on Natures Recipe Lamb
> and Rice Puppy food?
> jw

From: "Steve Crane" >
"You might check the label and make sure they have finally added
supplemental taurine to the food. They were one of three companies with

lamb based products that were implicated in causing dilated
cardiomyopathy. Lamb is intrinsically deficient in taurine and it
needs to be supplemented in any lamb based diet. You can tell by
looking at the ingredient panel and finding taurine listed as a
separate ingredient. 3 Nutro Natural Choice products, Nature's Recipe
and Sensible Choice (I think it was Sensible Choice) were all reported
as having deficient levels of taurine in a 2003 published report from
UC Davis. The ctual study was donein 1999, but publication was 3 years
later. At that time I looked at the labels and Nutro had changed only 1

of the foods implicated and the other two companies had made no changes

at all. Nutro had changed the Nutro Natural Choice LM&R food but had
not yet changed the Lite product and one other food they produced that
was implicated. Most companies made changes in the late 90's when the
issue first came up."

February 7th 06, 04:52 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
> Phil P. wrote:
> > "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> > Good - at least you recognize that we have the best studies, regardless
> > > of funding them at various universities
>
> > The first c/d studies weren't too good, were they, Steve? Someone at Hill's
> > forgot to include taurine in the feline formula and as a result, a lot of
> > cats developed dilated cardiomyopathy and died.
>
> Very interesting. I was in the dog groups this morning and happened
> upon this post:
>
No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog) and
looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what Phil posted,
I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up what he says.

Phil P.
February 7th 06, 05:10 PM
" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog) and
> looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what Phil posted,
> I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up what he says.

Just ask your boss. lol! You say you work for the company- so you should
*know* its true!

February 7th 06, 08:52 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
> wrote:
> > Never a post spamming the group. Did you ever see one?
>
> Yes, for the past several years. Obviously you haven't been here that
> long and you would have seen the posts. I'm not quite that naive
>
> > I prefer biased information rather than no information.
>
> I see that :) I don't know why you're having such a hard time geting
> nutrient profiles from these companies. I've never had a problem.
> Perhaps you need to go past speaking to the company's receptionist?
> Maybe word your request differently? I don't know. Again, I've never
> had a problem in the past with getting this kind of information. It
> was an easy and quick process.

I checked into the info you last gave me about this and the web site
you referred to did not give me the details I needed. If you don't need
much in the way of info, then yes, you have a quick and easy process. I
wanted specific phosphorus levels and that was extremely difficult. And
even something as benign as kilocalories is not that easy. It should be
all available on the internet without even having to have a "process"
to get to it. I should not have to telephone for something as basic as
kilocalories or phosphorus levels for cat food. And then after
telephoning the biggest company in the world for this, Purina/Nestle, I
definitely should not have to wait weeks for something that is printed.
That's plain insane. Especially when the have a veterinarian web site
and computer programs, none of which has this information. I checked
the vet site of Purina and downloaded their vet programs. IDIOT LEVEL
STUFF! Really depressing that this is what they give the vets.

If you found the information in the past, fine. But if you cannot
reproduce it for me then it's essentially and utterly completely
useless for me. I need information not blanket criticisms. A company
rep that provides numbers for me is far more valuable than a poster who
says the company rep is biased. Don't you see that? You are, so far,
just giving me static, no numbers, no info, just noise, and critical
noise of me. That gets my attention :)

> > So reconsider your post which seems angry in contrast to the low key
> > posts that came from the rep.
>
> Hardly angry, just realistic. I prefer unbiased information. you
> don't.

I prefer information. Obviously no information cannot be biased because
nothing exists and nothing is always unbiased which seems to be your
preference because you are criticizing me or so it seems, hisssssssssss
- but not providing any information at all, like phosphorus levels or
kilocalories of the products that I have asked about. The correct
wording is that I prefer unbiased information over biased information
over no information at all.

You need to start providing information. That would be a start.

To put this in a cliche, if you can't boost, don't knock.

Give me fact, just the facts, ma'am...............

February 7th 06, 09:07 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Phil P. wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > > ---------------some snipping and sniping but not too much on my part
> :)
> > >
> > > Very much snipping on my part.
> >
> > and snippety too.
> >
> > > You might get a factual reply if you try to keep your request under 1000
> > > words. ;)
> >
> > one word, kilocalories, was too much, garrulous? not at all. i felt bad
> > & badly that i had to explain to a food company that kilocalories per
> > gram or per ounce is a very good way to specify calories. most of the
> > world uses kcals/gram and purina should too :)
>
> One word? You just said you "had to explain to a food company that
> kilocalories per gram or per ounce is a very good way to specify calories."
> That had to take you at least an hour! lol.
>
> You're not getting the results you want because you annoy the people that
> you're asking for information. You babble and complicate
> very simple issues.

Now, now, just because I annoy you does not mean I annoy everybody.

I complicate things because all things are complicated if one looks
enough.

A kiss is just a kiss, as time goes by, is a song, not reality. A kiss
is really...

Take for example, the simple question, why is the sky blue?

The real answer would a Ph.D. exam answer. But if you keep it at the
idiot level, the way you would for a child, you can go into the color
blue. But the real answer involves hydrogen bonds and spectral analyses
and so on. Or so says a would-be astrophysicist who was asked this
question in his Ph.D. examination and he sweated the answer out over
hours, yes, hours of talking and chalking.

I am not a child. You are not a child. My furry beast is not a child
although she has not yet asked me why the sky is blue.

> > > The person was probably so tired after reading your garrulous
message
> that
> > > he fell asleep before s/he could reply.
> >
> > The message was too short and not at all garrulous since I was using a
> > filled-in form on the web site which did not allow for many words, even
> > if so inclined.
> >
> > Do not make the hasty generalization that how I post here is how I talk
> > on the telephone.
>
> I'd bet your friends answer your calls only from their home phones.

Thanks for the compliment :)

February 8th 06, 12:26 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> " > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog) and
> > looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what Phil posted,
> > I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up what he says.
>
> Just ask your boss. lol! You say you work for the company- so you should
> *know* its true!

Phil, you're usually pretty good about backing up what you say with
references. If you're going to make an allegation like that, then just
tell us if it was anecdotal or something more concrete. That's all I'm
saying.

Phil P.
February 8th 06, 05:27 AM
" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > " > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > > No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog) and
> > > looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what Phil posted,
> > > I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up what he says.
> >
> > Just ask your boss. lol! You say you work for the company- so you should
> > *know* its true!
>
> Phil, you're usually pretty good about backing up what you say with
> references. If you're going to make an allegation like that, then just
> tell us if it was anecdotal or something more concrete. That's all I'm
> saying.

You want a reference? I've got a reference that I *know* you'll trust:
*Steve Crane*. lol! I'm sure he remembers.

Phil P.
February 8th 06, 11:40 AM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...

> > You're not getting the results you want because you annoy the people
that
> > you're asking for information. You babble and complicate
> > very simple issues.
>
> Now, now, just because I annoy you does not mean I annoy everybody.

Maybe you don't annoy people who have nothing better to do than listen to
your incessant babbling . But you're obviously annoying the people you're
calling since you can't seem to get the information others got very easily,
now can you?.

Phil P.
February 8th 06, 05:02 PM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
> >
> > Phil, you're usually pretty good about backing up what you say
> > with references. If you're going to make an allegation like that,
> > then just tell us if it was anecdotal or something more concrete.
> > That's all I'm saying.
> >
>
> Actually, he's not. Whenever I asked the source, he started calling me
> a troll and other personal attacks.

Now, I can you a liar because I've never called you a troll- everything
else, but never a troll.

Have you taken out your anger and frustrations on Kami today? Its still
early, eh, sleaze?

NMR
February 8th 06, 05:11 PM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>>
>> Phil P. wrote:
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> > No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog)
>>> > and looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what
>>> > Phil posted, I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up
>>> > what he says.
>>>
>>> Just ask your boss. lol! You say you work for the company- so you
>>> should *know* its true!
>>
>> Phil, you're usually pretty good about backing up what you say
>> with references. If you're going to make an allegation like that,
>> then just tell us if it was anecdotal or something more concrete.
>> That's all I'm saying.
>>
>
> Actually, he's not. Whenever I asked the source, he started calling me
> a troll and other personal attacks.
>


That is out of proportion I did a Google about all your old post to figure
out what everyone had against you some very interested reading. everything
that get sent on the internet ends up somewhere even though you don't see it
here it gets stored somewhere. Changing your display name does not change
the person. If any one wants to see these post do a simple Google and you
all will see what the hype is about

Phil P.
February 8th 06, 05:41 PM
"NMR" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > wrote in
> > rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
> >
> >>
> >> Phil P. wrote:
> >>> " > wrote in message
> >>> oups.com...
> >>>
> >>> > No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog)
> >>> > and looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what
> >>> > Phil posted, I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up
> >>> > what he says.
> >>>
> >>> Just ask your boss. lol! You say you work for the company- so you
> >>> should *know* its true!
> >>
> >> Phil, you're usually pretty good about backing up what you say
> >> with references. If you're going to make an allegation like that,
> >> then just tell us if it was anecdotal or something more concrete.
> >> That's all I'm saying.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, he's not. Whenever I asked the source, he started calling me
> > a troll and other personal attacks.
> >
>
>
> That is out of proportion I did a Google about all your old post to
figure
> out what everyone had against you some very interested reading.
everything
> that get sent on the internet ends up somewhere even though you don't see
it
> here it gets stored somewhere. Changing your display name does not change
> the person. If any one wants to see these post do a simple Google and you
> all will see what the hype is about

Better not **** her off- she might take it out on Kami.

NMR
February 8th 06, 06:00 PM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
news:KapGf.30130$%[email protected]
>
> "NMR" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > wrote in
>> > rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Phil P. wrote:
>> >>> " > wrote in message
>> >>> oups.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> > No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog)
>> >>> > and looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what
>> >>> > Phil posted, I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up
>> >>> > what he says.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just ask your boss. lol! You say you work for the company- so you
>> >>> should *know* its true!
>> >>
>> >> Phil, you're usually pretty good about backing up what you say
>> >> with references. If you're going to make an allegation like that,
>> >> then just tell us if it was anecdotal or something more concrete.
>> >> That's all I'm saying.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Actually, he's not. Whenever I asked the source, he started calling me
>> > a troll and other personal attacks.
>> >
>>
>>
>> That is out of proportion I did a Google about all your old post to
> figure
>> out what everyone had against you some very interested reading.
> everything
>> that get sent on the internet ends up somewhere even though you don't see
> it
>> here it gets stored somewhere. Changing your display name does not
>> change
>> the person. If any one wants to see these post do a simple Google and
>> you
>> all will see what the hype is about
>
> Better not **** her off- she might take it out on Kami.
>
That is a scary thought Phil and also a sad one

Phil P.
February 8th 06, 06:26 PM
"NMR" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil P." > wrote in message
> news:KapGf.30130$%[email protected]
> >
> > "NMR" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > > wrote in
> >> > rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Phil P. wrote:
> >> >>> " > wrote in message
> >> >>> oups.com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog)
> >> >>> > and looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what
> >> >>> > Phil posted, I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up
> >> >>> > what he says.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Just ask your boss. lol! You say you work for the company- so you
> >> >>> should *know* its true!
> >> >>
> >> >> Phil, you're usually pretty good about backing up what you say
> >> >> with references. If you're going to make an allegation like that,
> >> >> then just tell us if it was anecdotal or something more concrete.
> >> >> That's all I'm saying.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Actually, he's not. Whenever I asked the source, he started calling
me
> >> > a troll and other personal attacks.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> That is out of proportion I did a Google about all your old post to
> > figure
> >> out what everyone had against you some very interested reading.
> > everything
> >> that get sent on the internet ends up somewhere even though you don't
see
> > it
> >> here it gets stored somewhere. Changing your display name does not
> >> change
> >> the person. If any one wants to see these post do a simple Google and
> >> you
> >> all will see what the hype is about
> >
> > Better not **** her off- she might take it out on Kami.
> >
> That is a scary thought Phil and also a sad one

It sure is. She said she posts here so she doesn't "take it out on Kami"--
then she tries to come off like a caring and dedicated caregiver by
broadcasting every little thing she supposedly does for her cat-- as if
she's trying to convince us that she's not the animal abuser that she has
portrayed herself as. She's merely using her cat to get attention. The
has-been can't handle being out of the spotlight.

NMR
February 8th 06, 06:39 PM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...

<sniped>
display name change has nothing to do with hiding. Is was
> taking the wind out of the sales of another obsessed stalker.

First of all I am not another one of your obsessed stalkers. Get that fact
straight real quick. You need to change your email address completey when
doing this. Just point out something you can do to prevent stalkers

> Given that I don't archive my posts, mostly because I'm not so
> arrogant as to believe everything I write is so important it needs
> to be kept for prosperity, you don't get a complete picture of
> anything even if you do has that much time on your hands to spend
> hours looking it up.
>

Took 5 minutes all you have to do is enter your display name and the name on
the newsgroups. I wanted to see what the problem was that people had with
you. You past post paint your own picture anyone can make their own
judgement

> Why is it my comments are given more weight than others?
I will let phil and Joe answer that one


I'm certainly not the first one to note Phil's efforts to appear more
> than he really is without anything to back it up. But I am the one
> who takes the most heat for it.

I will let Phil answer that one
>
> If I cared it would really bother me and wouldn't come here anymore.
>
That is your choice

Phil P.
February 8th 06, 06:41 PM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...

> Why is it my comments are given more weight than others? I'm
> certainly not the first one to note Phil's efforts to appear more
> than he really is without anything to back it up.


Only resentful know-nothings like you think so. My credibility is in
absolutely no danger from you.



But I am the one
> who takes the most heat for it.

That's probably because you're a manipulating sleaze.

>
> If I cared it would really bother me and wouldn't come here anymore.

You post here because you crave the attention-- any attention. That's what
your bull**** "Kami might be dying" post was all about-- *you*- not your
cat. Cat lovers are soft touches for low-lifes like you.

NMR
February 8th 06, 09:31 PM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> NMR > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>> I will let Phil answer that one
>
> Good, that means I won't have to read it. He'll have something putrid
> to say showing what he's like inside, and then his butt buddy Joe will
> chime in. If they cared about the group as they pretend, they would
> flood it hateful garbage.
>
I will let someone else handle that comment

> The killfile is your friend. Be mature enough to use it.
>
Definitely will keep that in mind I am already looking about adding someone
to it

Joe Canuck
February 8th 06, 10:00 PM
Margarita Salt wrote:
> NMR > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>> I will let Phil answer that one
>
> Good, that means I won't have to read it. He'll have something putrid
> to say showing what he's like inside, and then his butt buddy Joe will
> chime in. If they cared about the group as they pretend, they would
> flood it hateful garbage.
>

It seems like you just did what you accuse others of doing... fill the
group with hateful garbage. :-D


> The killfile is your friend. Be mature enough to use it.
>

-L.
February 9th 06, 02:46 AM
NMR wrote:
> That is out of proportion I did a Google about all your old post to figure
> out what everyone had against you some very interested reading. everything
> that get sent on the internet ends up somewhere even though you don't see it
> here it gets stored somewhere. Changing your display name does not change
> the person. If any one wants to see these post do a simple Google and you
> all will see what the hype is about

Why don't you keep that in mind next time you cuddle up to your friend
Nancy/cybercat/Topaz/Lumpy/Topaz/Mary/Mary S./rosefan/celeste/"Lyn" or
whomever it is she is claiming to be today.

-L.

-L.
February 9th 06, 02:48 AM
Margarita Salt wrote:
> Why is it my comments are given more weight than others? I'm
> certainly not the first one to note Phil's efforts to appear more
> than he really is without anything to back it up. But I am the one
> who takes the most heat for it.

Anyone who points that out takes heat for it - mainly from Phil
himself.


-L.

Joe Canuck
February 9th 06, 03:18 AM
-L. wrote:
> Margarita Salt wrote:
>> Why is it my comments are given more weight than others? I'm
>> certainly not the first one to note Phil's efforts to appear more
>> than he really is without anything to back it up. But I am the one
>> who takes the most heat for it.
>
> Anyone who points that out takes heat for it - mainly from Phil
> himself.

I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
qualifications are regarding feline care.

It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself and
offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.

February 9th 06, 06:20 AM
Joe Canuck wrote:
>
> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
> has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> qualifications are regarding feline care.

Or perhaps he's merely ****ed off that people are calling him on
plagiarism.


>
> It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
> assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself and
> offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.

Tell that to Phil. You just like him because he shares your Big
Obsession with Brandy.

-L.

NMR
February 9th 06, 06:39 AM
"-L." > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> NMR wrote:
>> That is out of proportion I did a Google about all your old post to
>> figure
>> out what everyone had against you some very interested reading.
>> everything
>> that get sent on the internet ends up somewhere even though you don't see
>> it
>> here it gets stored somewhere. Changing your display name does not
>> change
>> the person. If any one wants to see these post do a simple Google and
>> you
>> all will see what the hype is about
>
> Why don't you keep that in mind next time you cuddle up to your friend
> Nancy/cybercat/Topaz/Lumpy/Topaz/Mary/Mary S./rosefan/celeste/"Lyn" or
> whomever it is she is claiming to be today.
>
> -L.

I have L I did
I keep everything in mind just like I have with you I am peaceful with you
both. I keep everything in mind but remember what people do and say to
people is between them as I have said quite a bit when it comes to you two.
I don't get involved when you 2 go at it.

And I don't cuddle up with cybercat but have a newsgroup friendship with
quite a few people out here including yourself

cybercat
February 9th 06, 06:50 AM
"Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
...
> -L. wrote:
> > Margarita Salt wrote:
> >> Why is it my comments are given more weight than others? I'm
> >> certainly not the first one to note Phil's efforts to appear more
> >> than he really is without anything to back it up. But I am the one
> >> who takes the most heat for it.
> >
> > Anyone who points that out takes heat for it - mainly from Phil
> > himself.
>
> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
> has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> qualifications are regarding feline care.
>
> It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
> assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself and
> offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
>
Nicely said, Joe.

cybercat
February 9th 06, 06:51 AM
> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Joe Canuck wrote:
> >
> > I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
> > has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> > qualifications are regarding feline care.
>
> Or perhaps he's merely ****ed off that people are calling him on
> plagiarism.
>
>
> >
> > It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
> > assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself and
> > offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
>
> Tell that to Phil. You just like him because he shares your Big
> Obsession with Brandy.
>

No, he likes him because he offers really helpful information on
a regular basis. Asshole.

NMR
February 9th 06, 06:51 AM
"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>

Can we cuddle Cybercat :-)

Rhonda
February 9th 06, 06:54 AM
Joe Canuck wrote:

> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
> has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> qualifications are regarding feline care.


That's interesting. What are his background and qualifications?


> It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
> assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself and
> offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.

I will second that parroted commentary -- ha!

Rhonda

Charlie Wilkes
February 9th 06, 08:53 AM
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:39:45 GMT, "NMR"
> wrote:

>
>"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
>
><sniped>
>display name change has nothing to do with hiding. Is was
>> taking the wind out of the sales of another obsessed stalker.
>
>First of all I am not another one of your obsessed stalkers. Get that fact
>straight real quick.

Yikes. Call the police, Brandy. This guy is dangerously ****ed off.

>You need to change your email address completey when
>doing this. Just point out something you can do to prevent stalkers
>
>> Given that I don't archive my posts, mostly because I'm not so
>> arrogant as to believe everything I write is so important it needs
>> to be kept for prosperity, you don't get a complete picture of
>> anything even if you do has that much time on your hands to spend
>> hours looking it up.
>>
>
>Took 5 minutes all you have to do is enter your display name and the name on
>the newsgroups. I wanted to see what the problem was that people had with
>you. You past post paint your own picture anyone can make their own
>judgement

???

I just looked and I couldn't find anything too outrageous. Brandy is
usually pretty straight with people as far as I can see. But she is
unrepentant -- to the point of glee -- insofar as her former career is
concerned.

Well, I certainly am not one to pass judgement. I have never starred
in any porn, but I download it by the petrabyte. I have an hour-long
video of women ****ing in a restroom, shot through a crack in the
plaster. You can't see any faces. The restroom is so filthy the
women don't dare sit down, hence the exquisite labial views. Two or
three of them have just been ****ed, you can tell by the semen
dripping out of their ****s. One of them has a monster yeast
infection.

The sickest part is, I downloaded it by 56k modem, along with about 10
other CDs full of sleaze. Sometimes I leave my connection up all
night. I've gotten to be a regular expert with those goddamn par2
files, required because the latest innovation in binary posting (yEnc)
doesn't work worth ****.

Anyway, that's my thing. I like to watch... when they don't know I'm
watching. Hyuk yuk yuk!

So how about you, Matthew... what stiffens your crank when you slither
into the fart sack after a long day? Or do you just think about
Brandy?

Charlie

February 9th 06, 09:10 AM
Rhonda wrote:
> Joe Canuck wrote:
>
> > I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
> > has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> > qualifications are regarding feline care.
>
>
> That's interesting. What are his background and qualifications?
>
>
> > It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
> > assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself and
> > offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
>
> I will second that parroted commentary -- ha!

Yah - pretty ironic, isn't it?

-L.

February 9th 06, 09:12 AM
cybercat wrote:
> No, he likes him because he offers really helpful information on
> a regular basis. Asshole.

Slurp,
slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,sl urp,slurp,slurp,
slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,sl urp,slurp,slurp,slurp,
slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,sl urp,slurp,slurp,slurp,
slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,sl urp,slurp,slurp,slurp,
slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,sl urp,slurp,slurp,slurp,
slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,sl urp,slurp,slurp,slurp,
slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,sl urp,slurp,slurp,slurp,
slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,sl urp,slurp,slurp,slurp,
slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,sl urp,slurp,slurp,slurp,
slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,slurp,sl urp,slurp,slurp,slurp,
slurp,slurp,slurp, slurp.

Aren't you full yet?

-L.

February 9th 06, 09:27 AM
NMR wrote:
> Can we cuddle Cybercat :-)

She's too busy sucking Phil's ass.

-L.

-L.
February 9th 06, 12:01 PM
NMR wrote:
>
> I have L I did
> I keep everything in mind

Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
**** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.

$50 says you have never even Googled the bitch.

-L.

Phil P.
February 9th 06, 01:17 PM
"-L." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> NMR wrote:
> >
> > I have L I did
> > I keep everything in mind
>
> Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
> **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.


What a crock of ****! LOL! Really, now? Doing a flip-flop over your new
butt buddy, eh, Slim?
IIRC, you said she was a waste of DNA because of how badly she treats Kami:


From: "-L." >
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: Another trip to the ER


>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > Naa, my mood has been pretty much consistent with you all along- there's
no
> > variation. I think you're a piece of **** all the time.
>
> She's a waste of DNA. Just ignore her, Phil. She still, after all
> these years of people pointing out how she *created* Kami - made her
> into an antisocial biting machine - won't admit any culpability.
> That's worse than doing it in the first place, IMO.
>
> -L.


"My enemy's enemy is my friend" eh, Slim? At least you both have something
in common: you're both assholes- one literally and the other figuratively.

Maybe you wouldn't be so miserable if you took better care of yourself.

Phil P.
February 9th 06, 01:33 PM
> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Joe Canuck wrote:
> >
> > I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
> > has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> > qualifications are regarding feline care.
>
> Or perhaps he's merely ****ed off that people are calling him on
> plagiarism.


You can call me anything you like- at least I don't call myself a "vet
tech". Which type of "vet tech" were you, Slim, an LVT or an RVT or a
self-proclaimed "vet tech"? I don't recall ever seeing an LVT or RVT in
your sig.


> > It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
> > assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself and
> > offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
>
> Tell that to Phil. You just like him because he shares your Big
> Obsession with Brandy.

It seems like *I* cured you of your obsession with Brandy, eh, Slim?

Phil P.
February 9th 06, 01:36 PM
"Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
...
> -L. wrote:
> > Margarita Salt wrote:
> >> Why is it my comments are given more weight than others? I'm
> >> certainly not the first one to note Phil's efforts to appear more
> >> than he really is without anything to back it up. But I am the one
> >> who takes the most heat for it.
> >
> > Anyone who points that out takes heat for it - mainly from Phil
> > himself.
>
> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
> has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> qualifications are regarding feline care.


I think all that cocaine has burned out most of Brandy's brain cells and
Lyn's have been suffocated by an overload of fat globules because I don't
recall ever saying or implying that I'm a vet or vet tech or that I've had
any formal veterinary training other than from my vet who is a retired
veterinary professor and close personal friend. I don't consider myself
anything more than a disciple of experience and research. So, I don't know
what those two bimbos are talking about. I don't they do either.

Phil P.
February 9th 06, 01:37 PM
"Rhonda" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Joe Canuck wrote:
>
> > I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
> > has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> > qualifications are regarding feline care.
>
>
> That's interesting. What are his background and qualifications?


More than 40 years of experience working with cats, vets, labs, and a lot of
research. What are yours? Where exactly does your fountain of knowledge
come from- it sure isn't from experience.

>
>
> > It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
> > assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself and
> > offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
>
> I will second that parroted commentary -- ha!


Yep. That about sums up the source of all your knowledge about cats- because
you damned sure didn't acquire it through actual experience. Without Google,
you couldn't tell the difference between a hairball and turd without tasting
it.

Phil P.
February 9th 06, 01:53 PM
"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > Joe Canuck wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
> > > has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> > > qualifications are regarding feline care.
> >
> > Or perhaps he's merely ****ed off that people are calling him on
> > plagiarism.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
> > > assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself
and
> > > offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
> >
> > Tell that to Phil. You just like him because he shares your Big
> > Obsession with Brandy.
> >
>
> No, he likes him because he offers really helpful information on
> a regular basis. Asshole.

That really seems to bother some people, doesn't it?

Charlie Wilkes
February 9th 06, 02:12 PM
On 9 Feb 2006 03:01:58 -0800, "-L." > wrote:

>
>NMR wrote:
>>
>> I have L I did
>> I keep everything in mind
>
>Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
>**** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
>
>$50 says you have never even Googled the bitch.
>
Oh, sure he did. He's got furtive fingers.

Male sexual desire is a very ugly business, and it is also an area of
vulnerability in which nearly all men can be led to make fools of
themselves. Dissing Brandy is a way for Matthew and Joe to pretend
they are immune to the awesome power of the professional slut... BUT,
if they really had such an immunity, their obsessive hostility
wouldn't be necessary, would it???

Intellectual honesty is all I ask of anyone.

Charlie

Joe Canuck
February 9th 06, 02:46 PM
wrote:
> Joe Canuck wrote:
>> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
>> has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
>> qualifications are regarding feline care.
>
> Or perhaps he's merely ****ed off that people are calling him on
> plagiarism.
>
>
>> It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
>> assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself and
>> offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
>
> Tell that to Phil. You just like him because he shares your Big
> Obsession with Brandy.
>
> -L.
>

Phil offers good advice and truly cares about the well being of
felines... those are the qualities that I have observed over a long
period of time and the ones that I like.

Now, for all I know you could be another of Brandy's sock puppets.

Joe Canuck
February 9th 06, 02:48 PM
Rhonda wrote:
>
>
> Joe Canuck wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
>> has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
>> qualifications are regarding feline care.
>
>
> That's interesting. What are his background and qualifications?
>

Archived at Google Groups under this newsgroup... or you can ask him
yourself.


>
>> It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
>> assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself
>> and offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
>
> I will second that parroted commentary -- ha!
>
> Rhonda
>

Joe Canuck
February 9th 06, 02:53 PM
-L. wrote:
> NMR wrote:
>> I have L I did
>> I keep everything in mind
>
> Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
> **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
>

I really don't care about her former career all that much, although it
does tell me a little something about her character which is confirmed
through some of her rhetoric in here.

I also find it a little curious she protests about the attention some
give her, yet she projects herself like an attention magnet.

I'm more concerned over feline matters in this newsgroup.


> $50 says you have never even Googled the bitch.
>
> -L.
>

Joe Canuck
February 9th 06, 02:58 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> -L. wrote:
>>> Margarita Salt wrote:
>>>> Why is it my comments are given more weight than others? I'm
>>>> certainly not the first one to note Phil's efforts to appear more
>>>> than he really is without anything to back it up. But I am the one
>>>> who takes the most heat for it.
>>> Anyone who points that out takes heat for it - mainly from Phil
>>> himself.
>> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
>> has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
>> qualifications are regarding feline care.
>
>
> I think all that cocaine has burned out most of Brandy's brain cells and
> Lyn's have been suffocated by an overload of fat globules because I don't
> recall ever saying or implying that I'm a vet or vet tech or that I've had
> any formal veterinary training other than from my vet who is a retired
> veterinary professor and close personal friend. I don't consider myself
> anything more than a disciple of experience and research. So, I don't know
> what those two bimbos are talking about. I don't they do either.

Well, there ya go.

I'm just a computer guy who has transformed himself in a numbers guy.

:-)

Joe Canuck
February 9th 06, 03:00 PM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2006 03:01:58 -0800, "-L." > wrote:
>
>> NMR wrote:
>>> I have L I did
>>> I keep everything in mind
>> Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
>> **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
>>
>> $50 says you have never even Googled the bitch.
>>
> Oh, sure he did. He's got furtive fingers.
>
> Male sexual desire is a very ugly business, and it is also an area of
> vulnerability in which nearly all men can be led to make fools of
> themselves. Dissing Brandy is a way for Matthew and Joe to pretend
> they are immune to the awesome power of the

> professional slut... BUT,

Above was some honesty with regards to Brandy. :-D


> if they really had such an immunity, their obsessive hostility
> wouldn't be necessary, would it???
>
> Intellectual honesty is all I ask of anyone.
>

You asked, I provided... as above. :-D

> Charlie

Joe Canuck
February 9th 06, 03:06 PM
Margarita Salt wrote:
> Rhonda > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>>
>> Joe Canuck wrote:
>>
>>> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is
>>> because he has been quite forthright about exactly what his
>>> background and qualifications are regarding feline care.
>>
>> That's interesting. What are his background and qualifications?
>>
>>
>>> It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
>>> assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate
>>> oneself and offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
>> I will second that parroted commentary -- ha!
>>
>> Rhonda
>>
>>
>
> Educated? He is not educated in veterinary medicine, but comes off
> like he is because he picked up a few books at a garage sale and
> refuses to cite his sources of information. He also give bad
> information as was demonstrated a few weeks back. I had him dead to
> rights on it and did he do? Resorted to the usual vulgarity about my
> past, which he doesn't care about at all...
>

Unfortunately, you have chosen to not archive your posts which makes
checking out your future claims with regards to past behavior in the
newsgroup (such as the one above) a little more difficult although not
impossible.

Arrogance, as you stated earlier, has *nothing* to do with you not
archiving your posts.

You purposefully seek out attention using your cat as the vehicle.
Nothing particularly wrong with that unless the cat suffers or you
become a disruptive force in the group.

Phil P.
February 9th 06, 04:27 PM
"Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
...

> Unfortunately, you have chosen to not archive your posts which makes
> checking out your future claims with regards to past behavior in the
> newsgroup (such as the one above) a little more difficult although not
> impossible.
>
> Arrogance, as you stated earlier, has *nothing* to do with you not
> archiving your posts.


The truth of the matter is she leaves a trail of **** everywhere she goes.
She doesn't want anyone to know so she can play the innocent victim.



>
> You purposefully seek out attention using your cat as the vehicle.


That's what ****es me off the most. She uses her cat to get attention. Her
"Kami maybe dying" thread is incontrovertible proof. She abused Kami for who
knows how long and how much and then tries to come off like a loving and
caring caretaker with all bull**** cat stories. If there's a better example
of a sociopath than her, I haven't seen it.




> Nothing particularly wrong with that unless the cat suffers or you
> become a disruptive force in the group.

*She* started this flame war- now she's whining like an innocent victim. lol

Phil P.
February 9th 06, 04:29 PM
"Joe Canuck" > wrote in message
...

> Unfortunately, you have chosen to not archive your posts which makes
> checking out your future claims with regards to past behavior in the
> newsgroup (such as the one above) a little more difficult although not
> impossible.
>
> Arrogance, as you stated earlier, has *nothing* to do with you not
> archiving your posts.


The truth of the matter is she leaves a trail of **** everywhere she goes.
She doesn't archive her posts so no one can see her pattern an she can play
the innocent victim.



>
> You purposefully seek out attention using your cat as the vehicle.


That's what ****es me off the most. She uses her cat to get attention. Her
"Kami maybe dying" thread is incontrovertible proof. She abused Kami for who
knows how long and how much and then tries to come off like a loving and
caring caretaker with all bull**** cat stories. If there's a better example
of a sociopath than her, I haven't seen it.




> Nothing particularly wrong with that unless the cat suffers or you
> become a disruptive force in the group.

*She* started this flame war- now she's whining like an innocent victim. lol

Phil P.
February 9th 06, 04:30 PM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...


> Educated? He is not educated in veterinary medicine,


Who said or implied I was formally educated in veterinary medicine? Better
lay off the drugs- you're hallucinating.


but comes off
> like he is


It just seems that way to you because you know nothing about cats- as you've
demonstrated by screwing up Kami's life. I shudder at the thought of how
many times you "took it out on Kami". She became an aggressive, biting cat
because you're psychotic- she never knew what to expect from you- a pet or a
swat. To make matters worse, you had her declawed in a fit of rage because
some bimbo make-up artist complained about the scratches-- which only
increased her biting behavior.



because he picked up a few books at a garage sale and
> refuses to cite his sources of information.


Actually, I buy my texts from Amazon, Barnes & Noble or directly from the
publishers.



He also give bad
> information as was demonstrated a few weeks back.

LOL! I don't think so. The line I recommended *does* have the overall
lowest phosphorus levels of all Fancy Feast lines.


I had him dead to
> rights on it

Seriously, lay off the crack/cocaine for awhile- You're really hallucinating
and delusional.

NMR
February 9th 06, 05:53 PM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
>

You are a sick individual

NMR
February 9th 06, 06:05 PM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Feb 2006 03:01:58 -0800, "-L." > wrote:
>

<sniped >

Charlie

As I said you are a sick individual if you believe any of the stupid crap
you just posted about me.
there is no obsessive hostility this is the first post comments I have
every had about Brandy. Could care less about her decide to look up her
previous post to see what people where talking about the abusiveness towards
here cat. Did a Google found the past post did some reading. I have not
made any comment about her past job choices or about her ways with her cat
just her troll response about Phil.

NMR
February 9th 06, 06:06 PM
"-L." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> NMR wrote:
>>
>> I have L I did
>> I keep everything in mind
>
> Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
> **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
>
> $50 says you have never even Googled the bitch.
>
> -L.

I have no comment for you L

PawsForThought
February 9th 06, 06:19 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> It just seems that way to you because you know nothing about cats- as you've
> demonstrated by screwing up Kami's life. I shudder at the thought of how
> many times you "took it out on Kami". She became an aggressive, biting cat
> because you're psychotic- she never knew what to expect from you- a pet or a
> swat. To make matters worse, you had her declawed in a fit of rage because
> some bimbo make-up artist complained about the scratches-- which only
> increased her biting behavior.

I'm surprised she hasn't had the poor cat's teeth removed :(

PawsForThought
February 9th 06, 06:41 PM
Margarita Salt wrote:
> Educated? He is not educated in veterinary medicine, but comes off
> like he is because he picked up a few books at a garage sale and
> refuses to cite his sources of information. He also give bad
> information as was demonstrated a few weeks back. I had him dead to
> rights on it and did he do? Resorted to the usual vulgarity about my
> past, which he doesn't care about at all...

Are you kidding? I would trust a cat to Phil P anyday. You, you would
just hack off the ends of the cat's toes if it wasn't behaving right.

Joe Canuck
February 9th 06, 06:43 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
> Margarita Salt wrote:
>> Educated? He is not educated in veterinary medicine, but comes off
>> like he is because he picked up a few books at a garage sale and
>> refuses to cite his sources of information. He also give bad
>> information as was demonstrated a few weeks back. I had him dead to
>> rights on it and did he do? Resorted to the usual vulgarity about my
>> past, which he doesn't care about at all...
>
> Are you kidding? I would trust a cat to Phil P anyday. You, you would
> just hack off the ends of the cat's toes if it wasn't behaving right.
>

Yes, me too, despite my past disagreements with him. :-)

I think Phil should enroll in veterinary school. :-D

Joe Canuck
February 9th 06, 06:53 PM
Margarita Salt wrote:
> PawsForThought > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>> Phil P. wrote:
>>> It just seems that way to you because you know nothing about
>>> cats- as you've demonstrated by screwing up Kami's life. I
>>> shudder at the thought of how many times you "took it out on
>>> Kami". She became an aggressive, biting cat because you're
>>> psychotic- she never knew what to expect from you- a pet or a
>>> swat. To make matters worse, you had her declawed in a fit of
>>> rage because some bimbo make-up artist complained about the
>>> scratches-- which only increased her biting behavior.
>> I'm surprised she hasn't had the poor cat's teeth removed :(
>>
>>
>
> Oh, please, what Phil wrote is utter b.s. He has not once provided any
> proof of his comments. Just likes to say "read somewhere" and so
> forth. As far as my spies tell me, all he had was vitriol when
> confronted with the fact that I was no longer in the industry when Kami
> was declawed. Don't be suckered in by such a person.


> Let him look foolish by himself.
>

Something you've done quite well with for yourself.

I think you were just recently complaining about posters spewing garbage
in the group and well, here you go with your own spewing.

Give it a rest.

NMR
February 9th 06, 06:59 PM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> PawsForThought > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>>
>> Phil P. wrote:
>>> It just seems that way to you because you know nothing about
>>> cats- as you've demonstrated by screwing up Kami's life. I
>>> shudder at the thought of how many times you "took it out on
>>> Kami". She became an aggressive, biting cat because you're
>>> psychotic- she never knew what to expect from you- a pet or a
>>> swat. To make matters worse, you had her declawed in a fit of
>>> rage because some bimbo make-up artist complained about the
>>> scratches-- which only increased her biting behavior.
>>
>> I'm surprised she hasn't had the poor cat's teeth removed :(
>>
>>
>
> Oh, please, what Phil wrote is utter b.s. He has not once provided any
> proof of his comments. Just likes to say "read somewhere" and so
> forth. As far as my spies tell me, all he had was vitriol when
> confronted with the fact that I was no longer in the industry when Kami
> was declawed. Don't be suckered in by such a person. Let him look
> foolish by himself.
>
> --
>

Well I will say that Phil has helped me and I would trust him. He might not
be a vet but he extremely knowledgeable
more knowledgeable than some of the vets that I have met thru the shelters

February 9th 06, 07:59 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "-L." > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > NMR wrote:
> > >
> > > I have L I did
> > > I keep everything in mind
> >
> > Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
> > **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
>
>
> What a crock of ****! LOL! Really, now? Doing a flip-flop over your new
> butt buddy, eh, Slim?
> IIRC, you said she was a waste of DNA because of how badly she treats Kami:

I never said I liked Brandy, or advocated her declawing her. I merely
said there's no reason to rake her over the coals because she seeks
info or input here when Kami was/is sick. You guys jump on the
bandwagon like flies on ****.


>
> "My enemy's enemy is my friend" eh, Slim? At least you both have something
> in common: you're both assholes- one literally and the other figuratively.
>
> Maybe you wouldn't be so miserable if you took better care of yourself.

Maybe you'd have some credibility if you could post one reply without
"insulting" someone. Mr. "40 years of experience". Are you uincluding
the cats you had when you were 3? Bwahahahahahahha!

The fact is, you aren't any better qualified than anyone else who has
been around cats for any length of time to answer questions or make
comments - you just think you are. You "parrot" **** from Cornell and
other sources and try to pass it off as your own. People have been
calling you on it for years. It's only your slug friends like
cyber**** who don't don't know any better, who fall for it.

But of course, this is all old territory...


-L.

Phil P.
February 9th 06, 08:14 PM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> NMR > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
> > Well I will say that Phil has helped me and I would trust him. He
> > might not be a vet but he extremely knowledgeable
> > more knowledgeable than some of the vets that I have met thru the
> > shelters
> >
>
> That could well be true, but seeing the way he will lie at the drop of
> a hat to elevate himself


Unlike you, I don't have to lie nor do I need to elevate myself. I just
seem elevated to you because you're in the gutter.


Someone that
> desperate for recognition, and that quick to go from one personality to
> another should be approached with caution.

Wow! I couldn't have described you better- You're an animal-abusing crack
whore-has-been trying desperately to portray yourself as a loving caretaker.
You're so desperate for attention that you use your abused cat to get it.

I think you're "so I don't take it out on Kami" statement opened a lot of
peoples' eyes and see you for you really are. You're new buddy Lyn was
right about you: you are a waste of DNA.

cybercat
February 9th 06, 08:46 PM
"Phil P." > wrote

>
> Wow! I couldn't have described you better- You're an animal-abusing crack
whore-has-been trying desperately to portray yourself as a loving caretaker.

My problem with Brandy is just this: that she declawed her cat knowing full
and well what it is and still has no regrets that she did. I think that
sucks. Whether or not she does, or ever did for cash, is beside the point.

On an intuitive level (feel free to pop up with a chorus of "horse ****!"
that is what I usually want to say when people go all intuitive on me)
people who truly and deeply love their animals and animals in general can
just "tell" when they are talking to someone who sees an animal more as an
object that a treasured being. My intuition tells me that Brandy is one of
those people. This is why she is one of the few people in my killfile. What
I hear in her posts troubles me, but there is nothing I can do about the
things that trouble me, so why read her and nauseate myself?

I can see Charlie's point about professional sluts, but I also want to make
the point that the two things above make it quite possible to dislike Brandy
for things that have nothing to do with what she chose to do with her nether
regions or those of others. I'm all for hard work and the entrepreneurial
spirit. You have to use what you've got to pay your way, after all.

cybercat
February 9th 06, 08:49 PM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
news:8pGGf.30572$%[email protected]
>
> "-L." > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > NMR wrote:
> > >
> > > I have L I did
> > > I keep everything in mind
> >
> > Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
> > **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
>
>
> What a crock of ****! LOL! Really, now? Doing a flip-flop over your new
> butt buddy, eh, Slim?
> IIRC, you said she was a waste of DNA because of how badly she treats
Kami:
>
>
> From: "-L." >
> Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Another trip to the ER
>
>
> >
> > Phil P. wrote:
> > > Naa, my mood has been pretty much consistent with you all along-
there's
> no
> > > variation. I think you're a piece of **** all the time.
> >
> > She's a waste of DNA. Just ignore her, Phil. She still, after all
> > these years of people pointing out how she *created* Kami - made her
> > into an antisocial biting machine - won't admit any culpability.
> > That's worse than doing it in the first place, IMO.
> >
> > -L.
>
>
> "My enemy's enemy is my friend" eh, Slim? At least you both have
something
> in common: you're both assholes- one literally and the other figuratively.
>

You've got her number, Phil. lol indeed. What is really funny--you should
try
this--is that often Lyn and I agree--but all I have to do is argue with
someone
and she'll take the opposite side. It's like playing puppets.

Phil P.
February 9th 06, 09:07 PM
"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil P." > wrote in message
> news:8pGGf.30572$%[email protected]
> >
> > "-L." > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > NMR wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have L I did
> > > > I keep everything in mind
> > >
> > > Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
> > > **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
> >
> >
> > What a crock of ****! LOL! Really, now? Doing a flip-flop over your new
> > butt buddy, eh, Slim?
> > IIRC, you said she was a waste of DNA because of how badly she treats
> Kami:
> >
> >
> > From: "-L." >
> > Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:03 AM
> > Subject: Re: Another trip to the ER
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Phil P. wrote:
> > > > Naa, my mood has been pretty much consistent with you all along-
> there's
> > no
> > > > variation. I think you're a piece of **** all the time.
> > >
> > > She's a waste of DNA. Just ignore her, Phil. She still, after all
> > > these years of people pointing out how she *created* Kami - made her
> > > into an antisocial biting machine - won't admit any culpability.
> > > That's worse than doing it in the first place, IMO.
> > >
> > > -L.
> >
> >
> > "My enemy's enemy is my friend" eh, Slim? At least you both have
> something
> > in common: you're both assholes- one literally and the other
figuratively.
> >
>
> You've got her number, Phil. lol indeed. What is really funny--you should
> try
> this--is that often Lyn and I agree--but all I have to do is argue with
> someone
> and she'll take the opposite side. It's like playing puppets.


Lyn and I always got along even though we disagreed on some issues. She
started **** with me because you and I get along and she hates you. Its the
old 'guilt by association' routine. lol That's why she always mentions you
in her replies to me. I think she has some serious issues.

NMR
February 9th 06, 09:26 PM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
news:KhNG[email protected]
>
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Phil P." > wrote in message
>> news:8pGGf.30572$%[email protected]
>> >
>> > "-L." > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> > >
>> > > NMR wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I have L I did
>> > > > I keep everything in mind
>> > >
>> > > Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give
>> > > Brandy
>> > > **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
>> >
>> >
>> > What a crock of ****! LOL! Really, now? Doing a flip-flop over your
>> > new
>> > butt buddy, eh, Slim?
>> > IIRC, you said she was a waste of DNA because of how badly she treats
>> Kami:
>> >
>> >
>> > From: "-L." >
>> > Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:03 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Another trip to the ER
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Phil P. wrote:
>> > > > Naa, my mood has been pretty much consistent with you all along-
>> there's
>> > no
>> > > > variation. I think you're a piece of **** all the time.
>> > >
>> > > She's a waste of DNA. Just ignore her, Phil. She still, after all
>> > > these years of people pointing out how she *created* Kami - made her
>> > > into an antisocial biting machine - won't admit any culpability.
>> > > That's worse than doing it in the first place, IMO.
>> > >
>> > > -L.
>> >
>> >
>> > "My enemy's enemy is my friend" eh, Slim? At least you both have
>> something
>> > in common: you're both assholes- one literally and the other
> figuratively.
>> >
>>
>> You've got her number, Phil. lol indeed. What is really funny--you should
>> try
>> this--is that often Lyn and I agree--but all I have to do is argue with
>> someone
>> and she'll take the opposite side. It's like playing puppets.
>
>
> Lyn and I always got along even though we disagreed on some issues. She
> started **** with me because you and I get along and she hates you. Its
> the
> old 'guilt by association' routine. lol That's why she always mentions
> you
> in her replies to me. I think she has some serious issues.
>
That explains alot

cybercat
February 9th 06, 10:01 PM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Phil P." > wrote in message
> > news:8pGGf.30572$%[email protected]
> > >
> > > "-L." > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > NMR wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have L I did
> > > > > I keep everything in mind
> > > >
> > > > Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give
Brandy
> > > > **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
> > >
> > >
> > > What a crock of ****! LOL! Really, now? Doing a flip-flop over your
new
> > > butt buddy, eh, Slim?
> > > IIRC, you said she was a waste of DNA because of how badly she treats
> > Kami:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "-L." >
> > > Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:03 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Another trip to the ER
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Phil P. wrote:
> > > > > Naa, my mood has been pretty much consistent with you all along-
> > there's
> > > no
> > > > > variation. I think you're a piece of **** all the time.
> > > >
> > > > She's a waste of DNA. Just ignore her, Phil. She still, after all
> > > > these years of people pointing out how she *created* Kami - made her
> > > > into an antisocial biting machine - won't admit any culpability.
> > > > That's worse than doing it in the first place, IMO.
> > > >
> > > > -L.
> > >
> > >
> > > "My enemy's enemy is my friend" eh, Slim? At least you both have
> > something
> > > in common: you're both assholes- one literally and the other
> figuratively.
> > >
> >
> > You've got her number, Phil. lol indeed. What is really funny--you
should
> > try
> > this--is that often Lyn and I agree--but all I have to do is argue with
> > someone
> > and she'll take the opposite side. It's like playing puppets.
>
>
> Lyn and I always got along even though we disagreed on some issues. She
> started **** with me because you and I get along and she hates you. Its
the
> old 'guilt by association' routine. lol That's why she always mentions
you
> in her replies to me. I think she has some serious issues.
>

I think you have a real talent for understatement! :)

Say that you think Lyn has some serious issues is like saying that you
suspect
Megan has "a few psychological problems." :)

cybercat
February 9th 06, 10:25 PM
"NMR" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil P." > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "cybercat" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Phil P." > wrote in message
> >> news:8pGGf.30572$%[email protected]
> >> >
> >> > "-L." > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> > >
> >> > > NMR wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I have L I did
> >> > > > I keep everything in mind
> >> > >
> >> > > Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give
> >> > > Brandy
> >> > > **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What a crock of ****! LOL! Really, now? Doing a flip-flop over your
> >> > new
> >> > butt buddy, eh, Slim?
> >> > IIRC, you said she was a waste of DNA because of how badly she treats
> >> Kami:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From: "-L." >
> >> > Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:03 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: Another trip to the ER
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Phil P. wrote:
> >> > > > Naa, my mood has been pretty much consistent with you all along-
> >> there's
> >> > no
> >> > > > variation. I think you're a piece of **** all the time.
> >> > >
> >> > > She's a waste of DNA. Just ignore her, Phil. She still, after all
> >> > > these years of people pointing out how she *created* Kami - made
her
> >> > > into an antisocial biting machine - won't admit any culpability.
> >> > > That's worse than doing it in the first place, IMO.
> >> > >
> >> > > -L.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "My enemy's enemy is my friend" eh, Slim? At least you both have
> >> something
> >> > in common: you're both assholes- one literally and the other
> > figuratively.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You've got her number, Phil. lol indeed. What is really funny--you
should
> >> try
> >> this--is that often Lyn and I agree--but all I have to do is argue with
> >> someone
> >> and she'll take the opposite side. It's like playing puppets.
> >
> >
> > Lyn and I always got along even though we disagreed on some issues. She
> > started **** with me because you and I get along and she hates you. Its
> > the
> > old 'guilt by association' routine. lol That's why she always mentions
> > you
> > in her replies to me. I think she has some serious issues.
> >
> That explains alot
>
>

Lyn hates me because about a year ago I got upset with her because she
suggested that a woman take a cat that was peeing on the bathroom rug
back to the shelter. And it was a kill shelter. It was not the first time
Lyn
suggested that someone take an animal back, seemingly at "the drop of
a hat." More and more I noticed this callousness on her part, and it really
bothered me. I mean, this woman actually said that her family loved the cat.
There were so many things she could have tried rather than returning the cat
like it was just an object, and getting another one.

There is something about the whole idea of bringing a cat home from a
shelter, making it think it has a home, then taking it back that just
literally
breaks my heart and makes me come this --> <-- close to hating whoever
is responsible or could ever suggest such a cruel thing. That is how the
whole
Conan thing happened. Asshole Phillip adopts this beautiful red tom cat then
takes him back because he got a COLD. Like he was defective merchandise.

Lyn is so insecure that the mere suggestion that she is anything but More
"Whatever" Than Thou sends her into a rage. I see Usenet as a place to
exchange information, ideas, opinions. For Lyn it is the basis of her
self worth, her entire self image. So a discussion is MUCH MORE
than a discussion, and a disagreement much more than a disagreement.
It makes for psycho behavior. Including but not limited to, creating
elaborate fictions as to Who a Poster Really Is, and attributing things
they never wrote and nyms they never had to them. Including but not
limited to contacting the friends, family and colleagues of a poster and
waging a smear campaign. Until some sane person asks, "well, what did
she actually DO?" And the psycho has to say, "well she said something
I did not like in global, unmoderated forum Wah. Therefore she is evil."


These are my heinous crimes. :) Just in case you are interested. I bet
you can't pry Lynnie's take on things out of her with the shoehorn
she uses to get into her Walmart jeans.

Charlie Wilkes
February 9th 06, 10:38 PM
On 9 Feb 2006 20:46:02 +0100, "cybercat" > wrote:

>
>"Phil P." > wrote
>
>>
>> Wow! I couldn't have described you better- You're an animal-abusing crack
>whore-has-been trying desperately to portray yourself as a loving caretaker.
>
>My problem with Brandy is just this: that she declawed her cat knowing full
>and well what it is and still has no regrets that she did. I think that
>sucks. Whether or not she does, or ever did for cash, is beside the point.
>
>On an intuitive level (feel free to pop up with a chorus of "horse ****!"
>that is what I usually want to say when people go all intuitive on me)
>people who truly and deeply love their animals and animals in general can
>just "tell" when they are talking to someone who sees an animal more as an
>object that a treasured being. My intuition tells me that Brandy is one of
>those people. This is why she is one of the few people in my killfile. What
>I hear in her posts troubles me, but there is nothing I can do about the
>things that trouble me, so why read her and nauseate myself?
>
>I can see Charlie's point about professional sluts, but I also want to make
>the point that the two things above make it quite possible to dislike Brandy
>for things that have nothing to do with what she chose to do with her nether
>regions or those of others. I'm all for hard work and the entrepreneurial
>spirit. You have to use what you've got to pay your way, after all.
>
Sure, you can form an opinion of someone for any number of reasons.

For me, it's possible to disapprove of declawing cats as a matter of
principle, but not dislike someone who does it. I might feel
differently if it were possible for me to imagine that Kami is
anything other than a very content and pampered housecat. For
example, I think Brandy would have boarded Kami when she went to CA
for an extended work assignment, if she viewed Kami as anything other
than a treasured being.

Brandy is a seasoned Usenet troll. Like others of her ilk, she causes
phonies and ****heads to reveal themselves for what they are. I'm not
here to defend her, because she can take care of herself. I'm here,
as always, to enjoy the spectacle and comment frankly on what I see.

Charlie

NMR
February 9th 06, 10:42 PM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Feb 2006 20:46:02 +0100, "cybercat" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Phil P." > wrote
>>
>>>
>>> Wow! I couldn't have described you better- You're an animal-abusing
>>> crack
>>whore-has-been trying desperately to portray yourself as a loving
>>caretaker.
>>
>>My problem with Brandy is just this: that she declawed her cat knowing
>>full
>>and well what it is and still has no regrets that she did. I think that
>>sucks. Whether or not she does, or ever did for cash, is beside the point.
>>
>>On an intuitive level (feel free to pop up with a chorus of "horse ****!"
>>that is what I usually want to say when people go all intuitive on me)
>>people who truly and deeply love their animals and animals in general can
>>just "tell" when they are talking to someone who sees an animal more as an
>>object that a treasured being. My intuition tells me that Brandy is one of
>>those people. This is why she is one of the few people in my killfile.
>>What
>>I hear in her posts troubles me, but there is nothing I can do about the
>>things that trouble me, so why read her and nauseate myself?
>>
>>I can see Charlie's point about professional sluts, but I also want to
>>make
>>the point that the two things above make it quite possible to dislike
>>Brandy
>>for things that have nothing to do with what she chose to do with her
>>nether
>>regions or those of others. I'm all for hard work and the entrepreneurial
>>spirit. You have to use what you've got to pay your way, after all.
>>
> Sure, you can form an opinion of someone for any number of reasons.
>
> For me, it's possible to disapprove of declawing cats as a matter of
> principle, but not dislike someone who does it. I might feel
> differently if it were possible for me to imagine that Kami is
> anything other than a very content and pampered housecat. For
> example, I think Brandy would have boarded Kami when she went to CA
> for an extended work assignment, if she viewed Kami as anything other
> than a treasured being.
>
> Brandy is a seasoned Usenet troll. Like others of her ilk, she causes
> phonies and ****heads to reveal themselves for what they are. I'm not
> here to defend her, because she can take care of herself. I'm here,
> as always, to enjoy the spectacle and comment frankly on what I see.
>
> Charlie

You are a sick individual but we love you for it :-)

Keep us on our toes

cybercat
February 10th 06, 12:10 AM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote

> >I can see Charlie's point about professional sluts, but I also want to
make
> >the point that the two things above make it quite possible to dislike
Brandy
> >for things that have nothing to do with what she chose to do with her
nether
> >regions or those of others. I'm all for hard work and the entrepreneurial
> >spirit. You have to use what you've got to pay your way, after all.
> >
> Sure, you can form an opinion of someone for any number of reasons.
>
> For me, it's possible to disapprove of declawing cats as a matter of
> principle, but not dislike someone who does it. I might feel
> differently if it were possible for me to imagine that Kami is
> anything other than a very content and pampered housecat. For
> example, I think Brandy would have boarded Kami when she went to CA
> for an extended work assignment, if she viewed Kami as anything other
> than a treasured being.

Either that or you are being swayed by "the awesome power of the
professional slut."

:)

>
> Brandy is a seasoned Usenet troll. Like others of her ilk, she causes
> phonies and ****heads to reveal themselves for what they are.

Wow, another awesome power, too!

February 10th 06, 01:08 AM
wrote:
> The fact is, you aren't any better qualified than anyone else who has
> been around cats for any length of time to answer questions or make
> comments - you just think you are. You "parrot" **** from Cornell and
> other sources and try to pass it off as your own. People have been
> calling you on it for years. It's only your slug friends like
> cyber**** who don't don't know any better, who fall for it.
> But of course, this is all old territory...
> -L.

Actually, that's what all doctors do is parrot stuff. That's what's so
sad. Memorizing textbooks instead of evaluating research which is far
more fuzzy and difficult. I would do what they do overseas in some
places, like UK? You can't call yourself a doctor until you have done
original, real scientific research. That is humbling. Most doctors in
my opinion are just whores, pretending to be of service when money is
their real game. Even if they are sincere, they simply do not have the
time to really bone up on science and medicine. A survey in the Wall
Street Journal found the best of them were at least six months behind
the curve. And the worst? Don't ask.

Phil P. is far more qualified than any others here because at least he
knows where to go for his parroting and jas his own experiences. He has
a web site full of info. Does anyone else here have a web site? Anyone
else take the time? Anyone else have vet textbooks? I don't like
textbooks but if research articles are not available, then the
textbooks comes up for perusing.

>From my limited experiences here, the only person who has given
detailed information has been Phil P. and occasionally the Science Diet
fellow. Also some posters have the info but they don't like to go out
on a limb unless pushed. I was surprised when I explored a thread with
one poster and she had a wealth of information. Probably she did not
want to put it out at first because it's so difficult to get the facts
straight when dealing with unseen cats in a medical situation.

If you don't read the textbooks and have the experiences of many cats,
it's just not possible to have any real basis in a discussion. To say
that Phil P. is just like everyone else is plain silly.

Of course, I push Phil P. a bit because I want information that
probably only researchers have, but he gives me the buzz words and some
rules and I can take off from there.

Joe Canuck
February 10th 06, 01:30 AM
wrote:
> Phil P. wrote:
>> "-L." > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> NMR wrote:
>>>> I have L I did
>>>> I keep everything in mind
>>> Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
>>> **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
>>
>> What a crock of ****! LOL! Really, now? Doing a flip-flop over your new
>> butt buddy, eh, Slim?
>> IIRC, you said she was a waste of DNA because of how badly she treats Kami:
>
> I never said I liked Brandy, or advocated her declawing her. I merely
> said there's no reason to rake her over the coals because she seeks
> info or input here when Kami was/is sick. You guys jump on the
> bandwagon like flies on ****.
>
>
>> "My enemy's enemy is my friend" eh, Slim? At least you both have something
>> in common: you're both assholes- one literally and the other figuratively.
>>
>> Maybe you wouldn't be so miserable if you took better care of yourself.
>
> Maybe you'd have some credibility if you could post one reply without
> "insulting" someone. Mr. "40 years of experience". Are you uincluding
> the cats you had when you were 3? Bwahahahahahahha!
>
> The fact is, you aren't any better qualified than anyone else who has
> been around cats for any length of time to answer questions or make
> comments - you just think you are. You "parrot" **** from Cornell and
> other sources and try to pass it off as your own. People have been
> calling you on it for years. It's only your slug friends like
> cyber**** who don't don't know any better, who fall for it.
>
> But of course, this is all old territory...
>
>
> -L.
>

It wasn't the asking for help that bothered me, it was her reaction when
help was offered.

Steve Crane
February 10th 06, 02:21 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> > Yes, the company started with Mark Morris Sr and the first Prescription
> > k/d - the development of SCIENCE DIET

Nice try Phil, I don't know what you've been smoking, but your blatant
attempt to cut what I actually said is awfully obvious, below is the
WHOLE quote which you cut. I think I was very clear and I doubt anyone
missed the point.

> Yes, the company started with Mark Morris Sr and the first Prescription
> k/d - the development of SCIENCE DIET - which is what I was pretty
> clearly talking about was as stated earlier. Based on requests from
> Pfizer, Eli Lilly, etc.


To make this clear Hills Prescription Diet k/d was the first diet
formulated, originally called Raritan Ration C. SCIENCE DIET - *NOT*
Prescription Diet (did you catch the NOT this time) came much about
because of demand from the scientific community for a food they could
feed in long term trials involving dogs. Hill's produced those foods
upon demand and from that the commercial product - SCIENCE DIET - NOT,
repeat NOT, Prescription Diet was born.


> Lilly doesn't make veterinary drugs.


Come on Phil - don't be obtuse - you know damn well that trials
conducted by HUMAN drug makers used dogs as intermediary models for
hundreds upon hundreds of studies. This you know - don't be totally
ridiculous. Further Liliy made many drugs that were veterinary purposes
in the 60's and even into the 70's.


> > Yep. Hill's has the best studies money can buy.
> >
> > Good - at least you recognize that we have the best studies, regardless
> > of funding them at various universities
>
>
> The first c/d studies weren't too good, were they, Steve? Someone at Hill's
> forgot to include taurine in the feline formula and as a result, a lot of
> cats developed dilated cardiomyopathy and died.

Oh what utter BS - name another pet food company that was *THEN* - at
that time, in the same time frame, prior to Quinton Rogers work - (have
I made that really clear so you know the time frame?) that was THEN
adding supplemental taurine to a cat food.

The logic here is so utterly nonsensical it is difficult to imagine it
came out of you. By your logic - ship's captains in the 1200's should
have known about feeding vitamin C to their crews to prevent scurvy -
BEFORE it was even discovered. What nonsense!

Steve Crane
February 10th 06, 02:28 AM
PawsForThought wrote:
> Phil P. wrote:
> Very interesting. I was in the dog groups this morning and happened
> upon this post:
>
> 4. Steve Crane
> Feb 6, 7:27 pm show options
> Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health
> From: "Steve Crane" > - Find messages by this author
>
> John Wesley wrote:
> > Does anyone have any recomendations good or bad on Natures Recipe Lamb
> > and Rice Puppy food?
> > jw
>
> From: "Steve Crane" >
> "You might check the label and make sure they have finally added
> supplemental taurine to the food. They were one of three companies with
>
> lamb based products that were implicated in causing dilated
> cardiomyopathy. Lamb is intrinsically deficient in taurine and it
> needs to be supplemented in any lamb based diet. You can tell by


And what is your point? A pet owner asked for information about a food.
I provided some insight on that food - which by the way I checked the
company website today and they STILL have not added supplemental
taurine to the lamb based diets. Even though they were one of the foods
NAMED in the Quinton Rogers study published almost two years ago. So
your recommendation is that a pet owner should NOT be made aware of
this concern? And if the dog ends up with DCM then that's just too bad?


Nonsense!

Steve Crane
February 10th 06, 02:35 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> " > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog) and
> > looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what Phil posted,
> > I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up what he says.
>
> Just ask your boss. lol! You say you work for the company- so you should
> *know* its true!

Of course it's true - but you've either elected to ignore a HUGE part
of what happened or perhaps you don't know about it. ALL cat foods, not
just Hill's products, were a risk because NONE of them had supplemental
taurine in those days. Until Quinton Rogers did his work at Davis
NOBODY knew that taurine was involved in DCM problems in cats - NOBODY.
Hill's elected to do something that NO other pet food company did, we
pulled every feline product and dumped it, replacing it with
supplemented taurine products. I can still remember the mountains of
cat food in the Spokane and Seattle Washington warehouses that went to
the dump. Everybody else just let their products go on through the
system and slowly get replaced by new product. NO OTHER products
contained supplemental taurine at the time either.

-L.
February 10th 06, 02:49 AM
Phil P. wrote:
>
> Lyn and I always got along even though we disagreed on some issues.

We still agree on most issues.

> She
> started **** with me because you and I get along and she hates you.

Nope. I "started **** with you" if that's what you want to call it -
over the feral thread. Well, that and the fact that I don't sniff
after your ass.

> Its the
> old 'guilt by association' routine. lol That's why she always mentions you
> in her replies to me.

Only because your "absent" status when she posts stuff that is
blatantly WRONG is all too apparent to everyone who reads the group.
Where were you when she was claiming that any cat with a nictating
membrane showing needed to go to the vet? Or that any cut required a
trip to the vet? The truth is, I am equal-opportunity when it comes to
calling someone on the carpet. You aren't. You wouldn't dare call
cyber**** or any of your other little weenies on the carpet because
then you wouldn't have your built-in fan club.


>I think she has some serious issues.

We know who has "serious issues," Mr. LOL.

-L.

-L.
February 10th 06, 02:51 AM
Joe Canuck wrote:
> -L. wrote:
> > NMR wrote:
> >> I have L I did
> >> I keep everything in mind
> >
> > Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
> > **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
> >
>
> I really don't care about her former career all that much, although it
> does tell me a little something about her character which is confirmed
> through some of her rhetoric in here.
>
> I also find it a little curious she protests about the attention some
> give her, yet she projects herself like an attention magnet.
>
> I'm more concerned over feline matters in this newsgroup.

Bull****. You only rear your ugly head when there is a flame war or
Brandy Feast.

-L.

-L.
February 10th 06, 02:52 AM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2006 03:01:58 -0800, "-L." > wrote:
>
> >
> >NMR wrote:
> >>
> >> I have L I did
> >> I keep everything in mind
> >
> >Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
> >**** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
> >
> >$50 says you have never even Googled the bitch.
> >
> Oh, sure he did. He's got furtive fingers.

I was talking about cyber****.

>
> Male sexual desire is a very ugly business, and it is also an area of
> vulnerability in which nearly all men can be led to make fools of
> themselves. Dissing Brandy is a way for Matthew and Joe to pretend
> they are immune to the awesome power of the professional slut... BUT,
> if they really had such an immunity, their obsessive hostility
> wouldn't be necessary, would it???
>
> Intellectual honesty is all I ask of anyone.
>
> Charlie

There are some reasons I like you, Charlie.

-L.

-L.
February 10th 06, 03:06 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > Joe Canuck wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
> > > has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> > > qualifications are regarding feline care.
> >
> > Or perhaps he's merely ****ed off that people are calling him on
> > plagiarism.
>
>
> You can call me anything you like- at least I don't call myself a "vet
> tech". Which type of "vet tech" were you, Slim,

First, your sophomoric reference to me being overweight is above you,
Phil. Really. Do you really want to paint yourself as a bigot?

> an LVT or an RVT or a
> self-proclaimed "vet tech"? I don't recall ever seeing an LVT or RVT in
> your sig.

I was a vet teach at a feline specialty hospital for almost 3 years. I
was also ward manager, supervising others. Our hospital handled as
many as 90-100 cats a day, often. It was an awesome experience and a
humbling one. In many ways it was the best job I ever had and in some
ways the worst. And my experience there you and I have conversed about
on a number of occassions, so I don't understand why you are
challenging me about it now.

That makes me "more qualified" than you, in some ways, Phil. I didn't
have formal schooling but I did have the title and the job. I also
have a PhD and an MS, albeit not in vet med sciences. If it will make
you more "comfy" I will put those in my .sig. But honestly, I think
people who do stuff like that are insecure - as if they have to "prove"
something. I don't have to prove anything to anyone.

But I don't care about any of that. I'm not here to "pump up my ego"
and never have been. I am merely here to answer questions if and when
I can. I am more than willing to admit when I don't know something. I
have never pretended to know something I do not. And I am not
threatened by you or anyone else "questioning" my qualifications - they
are what they are. I have never pretended they were anything else.

>
> > > It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
> > > assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself and
> > > offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
> >
> > Tell that to Phil. You just like him because he shares your Big
> > Obsession with Brandy.
>
> It seems like *I* cured you of your obsession with Brandy, eh, Slim?

No, I feel sorry for Brandy takling **** when Kami may be dying.
That's a hard place to be, for anyone.

-L.

-L.
February 10th 06, 03:21 AM
cybercat wrote:
>
> Lyn hates me because about a year ago I got upset with her because she
> suggested that a woman take a cat that was peeing on the bathroom rug
> back to the shelter. And it was a kill shelter. It was not the first time
> Lyn
> suggested that someone take an animal back, seemingly at "the drop of
> a hat."

Um, yes it was, at that time. The "Dally" thread. Up until that time
you and I were cordial. YOU are the one who became nasty in that
thread and THAT is why I started ignoring you. Anyone can Google it
and read the truth. The more I ignored you, the more you frothed at
the mouth. Anyone can read for themselves what happened.



More and more I noticed this callousness on her part, and it really
> bothered me. I mean, this woman actually said that her family loved the cat.

She also said she was going to dump the cat in an area where there are
coyotes. THAT is why I told her to take the cat back to the shelter.


> There were so many things she could have tried rather than returning the cat
> like it was just an object, and getting another one.
>
> There is something about the whole idea of bringing a cat home from a
> shelter, making it think it has a home, then taking it back that just
> literally
> breaks my heart and makes me come this --> <-- close to hating whoever
> is responsible or could ever suggest such a cruel thing.


That's because you have never worked or volunteered in a shelter
setting.


>That is how the
> whole
> Conan thing happened. Asshole Phillip adopts this beautiful red tom cat then
> takes him back because he got a COLD. Like he was defective merchandise.
>
> Lyn is so insecure that the mere suggestion that she is anything but More
> "Whatever" Than Thou sends her into a rage.


Don't flatter yourself. The only thing that has ever gotten me even
close to being ****ed off was your incessant use of my child's name
and references to him when I specifically asked you not to. You
picked on an innocent baby when there was absolutley no reason to do
so.


I see Usenet as a place to
> exchange information, ideas, opinions. For Lyn it is the basis of her
> self worth, her entire self image. So a discussion is MUCH MORE
> than a discussion, and a disagreement much more than a disagreement.
> It makes for psycho behavior. Including but not limited to, creating
> elaborate fictions as to Who a Poster Really Is, and attributing things
> they never wrote and nyms they never had to them.

Oh, so now you are claiming you are not Lumpy, Topaz, Mary, Mary S.,
and rosefan? C'mon. Nobody here is that stupid.



>Including but not
> limited to contacting the friends, family and colleagues of a poster and
> waging a smear campaign.

Libel. I told you before, you better get an attorney. I know
*exactly* who you are, have ISPs that connect you, and have a whole
caseload of evidence. Keep it up. This is the same bull**** you tried
to tell the cops and they told you to knock it off and get a life. You
have absolutley NO EVIDENCE that I did any of the above. You're just
not very smart.

> Until some sane person asks, "well, what did
> she actually DO?" And the psycho has to say, "well she said something
> I did not like in global, unmoderated forum Wah. Therefore she is evil."

This is pretty ironic coming from somebody who CALLED THE POLICE on me
with absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back up what they were claiming. How
did you get my personal contact information, STALKER? Hummm? Maybe
the cops need to ask you THAT.

>
>
> These are my heinous crimes. :)

No, your "heinous crimes" started by harassing a 15 month old baby.
Then you called the cops and reported something that never happened.
That's not a "heinous crime," it's a real crime.

>Just in case you are interested. I bet
> you can't pry Lynnie's take on things out of her with the shoehorn
> she uses to get into her Walmart jeans.

And you show your maturity once again.

-L.

Joe Canuck
February 10th 06, 03:22 AM
-L. wrote:
> Joe Canuck wrote:
>> -L. wrote:
>>> NMR wrote:
>>>> I have L I did
>>>> I keep everything in mind
>>> Yah, right. Yet you chime in with Phil and Joe Cracker to give Brandy
>>> **** when her only crime was a career in the porn industry.
>>>
>> I really don't care about her former career all that much, although it
>> does tell me a little something about her character which is confirmed
>> through some of her rhetoric in here.
>>
>> I also find it a little curious she protests about the attention some
>> give her, yet she projects herself like an attention magnet.
>>
>> I'm more concerned over feline matters in this newsgroup.
>
> Bull****. You only rear your ugly head when there is a flame war or
> Brandy Feast.
>
> -L.
>

I've been here a long time, perhaps before you were born... which
explains my "ugly head". :-D

Joe Canuck
February 10th 06, 03:24 AM
-L. wrote:
> Phil P. wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>>> Joe Canuck wrote:
>>>> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
>>>> has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
>>>> qualifications are regarding feline care.
>>> Or perhaps he's merely ****ed off that people are calling him on
>>> plagiarism.
>>
>> You can call me anything you like- at least I don't call myself a "vet
>> tech". Which type of "vet tech" were you, Slim,
>
> First, your sophomoric reference to me being overweight is above you,
> Phil. Really. Do you really want to paint yourself as a bigot?
>
>> an LVT or an RVT or a
>> self-proclaimed "vet tech"? I don't recall ever seeing an LVT or RVT in
>> your sig.
>
> I was a vet teach at a feline specialty hospital for almost 3 years. I
> was also ward manager, supervising others. Our hospital handled as
> many as 90-100 cats a day, often. It was an awesome experience and a
> humbling one. In many ways it was the best job I ever had and in some
> ways the worst. And my experience there you and I have conversed about
> on a number of occassions, so I don't understand why you are
> challenging me about it now.
>
> That makes me "more qualified" than you, in some ways, Phil. I didn't
> have formal schooling but I did have the title and the job. I also
> have a PhD and an MS, albeit not in vet med sciences. If it will make
> you more "comfy" I will put those in my .sig. But honestly, I think
> people who do stuff like that are insecure - as if they have to "prove"
> something. I don't have to prove anything to anyone.
>
> But I don't care about any of that. I'm not here to "pump up my ego"
> and never have been. I am merely here to answer questions if and when
> I can. I am more than willing to admit when I don't know something. I
> have never pretended to know something I do not. And I am not
> threatened by you or anyone else "questioning" my qualifications - they
> are what they are. I have never pretended they were anything else.
>
>>>> It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
>>>> assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself and
>>>> offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
>>> Tell that to Phil. You just like him because he shares your Big
>>> Obsession with Brandy.
>> It seems like *I* cured you of your obsession with Brandy, eh, Slim?
>
> No, I feel sorry for Brandy takling **** when Kami may be dying.
> That's a hard place to be, for anyone.
>
> -L.
>

Well then, go comfort her instead of trading insults with the rest of us.

Phil P.
February 10th 06, 05:39 AM
"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > " > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > > No, you were trolling the dog groups (you don't even own a dog) and
> > > looking for an opportunity to bash Hill's. As for what Phil posted,
> > > I'd like to see a cite or a reference to back up what he says.
> >
> > Just ask your boss. lol! You say you work for the company- so you should
> > *know* its true!
>
> Of course it's true -

I know.

Phil P.
February 10th 06, 05:42 AM
"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>
> To make this clear Hills Prescription Diet k/d was the first diet
> formulated, originally called Raritan Ration C. SCIENCE DIET - *NOT*
> Prescription Diet (did you catch the NOT this time) came much about
> because of demand from the scientific community for a food they could
> feed in long term trials involving dogs. Hill's produced those foods
> upon demand and from that the commercial product - SCIENCE DIET - NOT,
> repeat NOT, Prescription Diet was born.

Perhaps you should tell your boss and the Morris Animal Foundation that
their company history is wrong and yours is right.


"ABOUT HILL'S PET FOOD COMPANY The Company Inspired By A Guide Dog
In 1939, his ideas were visionary in veterinary medicine. Dr. Mark L.
Morris, Sr., believed certain diseases in pets could be managed through
carefully-formulated nutrition.

The chance to prove his theory came when a young blind man named Morris
Frank asked Dr. Morris if anything could be done to save his guide dog,
Buddy, who was suffering from kidney failure. The result of Dr. Morris'
efforts was the nutritional formulation that would become the first Hill's®
Prescription Diet® product, and the world's first pet food designed to help
dogs with kidney disease. Soon after, Hill's Pet Nutrition was founded and
the field of clinical nutrition was a brand new industry." (from Hill's
website)

Did you get that? "the first *Hill's Prescription Diet* product".



Morris Animal Foundation
"In the late 1930s, Dr. Mark L. Morris practiced veterinary medicine in
Edison , New Jersey . While working as a veterinarian, he discovered he
could successfully manage some canine kidney ailments by changing the dog's
diet from high-protein dog food to a diet containing low amounts of protein
and salt.

One of Dr. Morris' first patients, Buddy, was the first Seeing Eye dog in
this country. Buddy and her owner, Morris Frank, traveled nationally to
speak on behalf of The Seeing Eye. Buddy suffered from kidney disease and
responded favorably to this new diet. Mr. Frank was told to feed Buddy a
special diet that included dry cereals, cottage cheese, minerals and meat.
However, Mr. Frank's blindness made it difficult for him to obtain and
prepare this mixture. So Dr. Morris' wife, Louise, canned the meal for Buddy
in their garage.

As word spread and the special canned diet became increasingly popular, the
Morris family could no longer meet the demand from other veterinarians. Dr.
Morris met with Burton Hill from Topeka , Kansas , who owned Hill Packing
Company. The two men signed a contract for the company to package the
special diets. This early success encouraged Dr. Morris to study how dietary
management could benefit other dog and cat diseases such as liver and heart
disease, pancreatitis and obesity. His pioneering work led to a line of pet
foods designed for veterinary use. Today, these products are called
Prescription Diet® pet foods. "

Did you catch that? "Today, these products are called *Prescription Diet*
pet foods."

http://www.morrisanimalfoundation.org/learn/about/history/founder.asp


> > The first c/d studies weren't too good, were they, Steve? Someone at
Hill's
> > forgot to include taurine in the feline formula and as a result, a lot
of
> > cats developed dilated cardiomyopathy and died.
>
> Oh what utter BS - name another pet food company that


I don't have to name another pet food company. You made my point. Hill's
was just as guilty as all the other companies you denigrate.

Phil P.
February 10th 06, 05:43 AM
"-L." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ps.com...
> > >
> > > Joe Canuck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because
he
> > > > has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> > > > qualifications are regarding feline care.
> > >
> > > Or perhaps he's merely ****ed off that people are calling him on
> > > plagiarism.
> >
> >
> > You can call me anything you like- at least I don't call myself a "vet
> > tech". Which type of "vet tech" were you, Slim,
>
> First, your sophomoric reference to me being overweight is above you,
> Phil. Really. Do you really want to paint yourself as a bigot?


If you have the brush- I have the ink. After I paint myself I'll roll
around on some 60# offset and we can play Rorschach. How's that sound?


>
> > an LVT or an RVT or a
> > self-proclaimed "vet tech"? I don't recall ever seeing an LVT or RVT in
> > your sig.
>
> I was a vet teach at a feline specialty hospital for almost 3 years. I
> was also ward manager, supervising others. Our hospital handled as
> many as 90-100 cats a day, often. It was an awesome experience and a
> humbling one. In many ways it was the best job I ever had and in some
> ways the worst. And my experience there you and I have conversed about
> on a number of occassions, so I don't understand why you are
> challenging me about it now.


Why? You're challenging me!


>
> That makes me "more qualified" than you, in some ways, Phil.


More qualified for what?


I didn't
> have formal schooling but I did have the title and the job.


In that case I guess I could call myself a vet tech... and a vet
assistant...and a nutritionist... and a behaviorist.... and a groomer...
and a manager... and a pooper scooper... and a butler.. and a janitor. but
I don't. Vet tech usually means LVT or RVT-- anything else is a veterinary
assistant-- although I've known a few assistants that were sharper than the
vet.



I also
> have a PhD and an MS, albeit not in vet med sciences.


Ph.D? I'm impressed. I never would have guessed. I have a Ph.D and a
couple of MBAs-- they work for me. I have a J.D. too- but he's on a
retainer. I had to quit college to go into business so they'd have a job
when they graduated. I was 4 years late and behind them in school to boot.
Its really a very funny story.


If it will make
> you more "comfy" I will put those in my .sig. But honestly, I think
> people who do stuff like that are insecure -

Naa-- they put letters after their names so they can charge more money. The
more letters-- the higher the bill. lol!


>
> But I don't care about any of that. I'm not here to "pump up my ego"
> and never have been. I am merely here to answer questions if and when
> I can. I am more than willing to admit when I don't know something. I
> have never pretended to know something I do not. And I am not
> threatened by you or anyone else "questioning" my qualifications - they
> are what they are. I have never pretended they were anything else.


I'm glad you cleared that up.


>
> >
> > > > It is easy to criticize those offering educated and experienced
> > > > assistance, but quite another thing to step up to the plate oneself
and
> > > > offer more than fluff or parroted commentary.
> > >
> > > Tell that to Phil. You just like him because he shares your Big
> > > Obsession with Brandy.
> >
> > It seems like *I* cured you of your obsession with Brandy, eh, Slim?
>
> No, I feel sorry for Brandy takling **** when Kami may be dying.


You still don't get it. Its all about attention-- that's *all*. She can't
feel too bad- she started this little flame war, didn't she?.



> That's a hard place to be, for anyone.

She's a manipulator. I don't think its as hard for her as she's led you to
believe.

Phil P.
February 10th 06, 05:45 AM
"-L." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> >
> > Lyn and I always got along even though we disagreed on some issues.
>
> We still agree on most issues.
>
> > She
> > started **** with me because you and I get along and she hates you.
>
> Nope.

Yep.


I "started **** with you" if that's what you want to call it -
> over the feral thread.


Nope. You started before that.


Well, that and the fact that I don't sniff
> after your ass.


Perhaps you can't bend down! Sorry- I couldn't resist that one.



>
> > Its the
> > old 'guilt by association' routine. lol That's why she always mentions
you
> > in her replies to me.
>
> Only because your "absent" status when she posts stuff that is
> blatantly WRONG is all too apparent to everyone who reads the group.


I don't read every post or every thread. Sometimes I don't have time to
read the group for days or even weeks.


> Where were you when she was claiming that any cat with a nictating
> membrane showing needed to go to the vet?

I would have agreed! The cat could have lost a lot of weight, or was
dehydrated, or had ocular pain, or a neurological disease. You should know
by now that I always err on the side of caution. I'd rather be wrong for
telling someone to take their cat to a vet than be wrong for telling them
not to-- especially if I can't see the cat. Have you *ever* seen me say
"wait and see what happens"???


Or that any cut required a
> trip to the vet?


How do you know its a cut if you can't see it?



The truth is, I am equal-opportunity when it comes to
> calling someone on the carpet. You aren't.


If I thought someone's advice could cause harm to a cat - I'd challenge
god himself! Actually, I think you're too liberal and you take too much for
granted. In real life, it might be ok- but not here. I would never fault
someone
for erring on the side of caution.



You wouldn't dare call
> cyber**** or any of your other little weenies on the carpet because
> then you wouldn't have your built-in fan club.


Fan club? lol! Hey- I could print my own posters! You should see my
mailing list! "Fan club"-- that's really funny.



> >I think she has some serious issues.
>
> We know who has "serious issues," Mr. LOL.


Yep- "we" sure do! LOL!

Rhonda
February 10th 06, 07:38 AM
Joe Canuck wrote:

> Rhonda wrote:
>
>> Joe Canuck wrote:
>>
>>> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
>>> has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
>>> qualifications are regarding feline care.
>>
>> That's interesting. What are his background and qualifications?
>
> Archived at Google Groups under this newsgroup... or you can ask him
> yourself.

No thanks on both options.

Rhonda

-L.
February 10th 06, 07:47 AM
Phil P. wrote:
>
> I would have agreed! The cat could have lost a lot of weight, or was
> dehydrated, or had ocular pain, or a neurological disease.

So you are now saying - as cyber**** did - that every time a cat shows
a nic membrane, it needs to go to the vet, eh?

> You should know
> by now that I always err on the side of caution. I'd rather be wrong for
> telling someone to take their cat to a vet than be wrong for telling them
> not to-- especially if I can't see the cat. Have you *ever* seen me say
> "wait and see what happens"???

That's not the question. The question is, does a cat need to see a vet
every time it's nic membranes are showing? Yes or no.

>
>
> Or that any cut required a
> > trip to the vet?
>
>
> How do you know its a cut if you can't see it?

Does every cut require a trip to the vet? Just answer the question,
Phil. It's not complicated. Yes or no.

These questions are not the point, though. The point is, if you had
any integrity at all, you'd have told cyber**** she was wrong when she
posted those very statements. But you don't. You pretend you
"didn't see it" time after time. You've done the exact same thing
before, and you'll do it again. It's funny how you are "absent" when
it's convenient for you but when the **** starts being thrown at
Brandy, or me, or Megan, or whomever your enemy is this week, there you
are. You are as transparent as Saran wrap.

>
> The truth is, I am equal-opportunity when it comes to
> > calling someone on the carpet. You aren't.
>
>
> If I thought someone's advice could cause harm to a cat - I'd challenge
> god himself! Actually, I think you're too liberal and you take too much for
> granted. In real life, it might be ok- but not here. I would never fault
> someone
> for erring on the side of caution.

Neither would I and never have I done so.

In the case above, I simply corrected wrong information, which was
confirmed by Hillary Israeli, MDV. Not every cat needs to be seen by a
vet for nic membranes showing - the cat could be waking up, sleepy,
drowsy or content. In the absence of clinical signs of illness, nic
membranes are not something to worry about, and YOU know it.

-L.

cybercat
February 10th 06, 08:17 AM
"Phil P." > wrote

> > Where were you when she was claiming that any cat with a nictating
membrane showing needed to go to the vet?
>
> I would have agreed! The cat could have lost a lot of >weight, or was
dehydrated, or had ocular pain, or a >neurological disease.

I thought I remembered you weighing in on this when we had the discussion
regarding Kitkat's Jasper. All evidence I've seen tells me that it can be a
sign of serious illness, and "can be" is all I need to get my cats to a vet.

cybercat
February 10th 06, 08:18 AM
"-L." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> >
> > I would have agreed! The cat could have lost a lot of weight, or was
> > dehydrated, or had ocular pain, or a neurological disease.
>
> So you are now saying - as cyber**** did - that every time a cat shows
> a nic membrane, it needs to go to the vet, eh?
>

I cannot wait for Jonathan to learn to read. What a joy that will be for
you.

Charlie Wilkes
February 10th 06, 08:22 AM
On 10 Feb 2006 00:10:09 +0100, "cybercat" > wrote:

>
>"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote
>
>> >I can see Charlie's point about professional sluts, but I also want to
>make
>> >the point that the two things above make it quite possible to dislike
>Brandy
>> >for things that have nothing to do with what she chose to do with her
>nether
>> >regions or those of others. I'm all for hard work and the entrepreneurial
>> >spirit. You have to use what you've got to pay your way, after all.
>> >
>> Sure, you can form an opinion of someone for any number of reasons.
>>
>> For me, it's possible to disapprove of declawing cats as a matter of
>> principle, but not dislike someone who does it. I might feel
>> differently if it were possible for me to imagine that Kami is
>> anything other than a very content and pampered housecat. For
>> example, I think Brandy would have boarded Kami when she went to CA
>> for an extended work assignment, if she viewed Kami as anything other
>> than a treasured being.
>
>Either that or you are being swayed by "the awesome power of the
>professional slut."

Yeah. I'm a hopeless case. I could illustrate the point by
describing various humiliating episodes in my past, but why bother? I
try to keep it in perspective, and not blame someone else for my own
weaknesses.

Besides, I love pornography. It enriches my life.
>
>:)
>
>>
>> Brandy is a seasoned Usenet troll. Like others of her ilk, she causes
>> phonies and ****heads to reveal themselves for what they are.
>
>Wow, another awesome power, too!
>
Yep. A really good troll causes people to react in a manner that is
emotional, not rational. When they do so, they reveal much more about
themselves than they intend. I've seen it before in this group, with
another individual who is also a damn good troll. I won't name names.

Charlie

February 10th 06, 09:38 AM
cybercat wrote:

>and "can be" is all I need to get my cats to a vet.

Because you're a moron with no common sense.

-L.

Phil P.
February 10th 06, 09:54 AM
"Rhonda" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Canuck wrote:
>
> > Rhonda wrote:
> >
> >> Joe Canuck wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because he
> >>> has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
> >>> qualifications are regarding feline care.
> >>
> >> That's interesting. What are his background and qualifications?
> >
> > Archived at Google Groups under this newsgroup... or you can ask him
> > yourself.
>
> No thanks on both options.
>
> Rhonda

Then why did you ask, asshole? LOL!

Phil P.
February 10th 06, 10:01 AM
"-L." > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> >
> > I would have agreed! The cat could have lost a lot of weight, or was
> > dehydrated, or had ocular pain, or a neurological disease.
>
> So you are now saying - as cyber**** did - that every time a cat shows
> a nic membrane, it needs to go to the vet, eh?


On Usnet, *yes* because I can't *see* the cat. If I could see the cat -
maybe not. It depends on when the third eyelids were showing and how long
and how often and whether or not there were other signs or circumstances.
Even if were a vet I wouldn't make diagnoses over the internet. I only make
suggestions or give advice-but that's me.


>
> > You should know
> > by now that I always err on the side of caution. I'd rather be wrong
for
> > telling someone to take their cat to a vet than be wrong for telling
them
> > not to-- especially if I can't see the cat. Have you *ever* seen me say
> > "wait and see what happens"???
>
> That's not the question. The question is, does a cat need to see a vet
> every time it's nic membranes are showing? Yes or no.


See above


>
> >
> >
> > Or that any cut required a
> > > trip to the vet?
> >
> >
> > How do you know its a cut if you can't see it?
>
> Does every cut require a trip to the vet? Just answer the question,
> Phil. It's not complicated. Yes or no.


Probably no. But on Usnet, *yes* because I can't *see* the cat. What looks
like cut to an untrained eye could be something more serious.


>
> These questions are not the point, though. The point is, if you had
> any integrity at all, you'd have told cyber**** she was wrong when she
> posted those very statements. But you don't. You pretend you
> "didn't see it" time after time.


I wasn't here. If I was, I probably would have said yes- because I can't see
the cat.



You've done the exact same thing
> before, and you'll do it again. It's funny how you are "absent" when
> it's convenient for you but when the **** starts being thrown at
> Brandy, or me,


Everytime I'm not here, its because I'm avoiding an issue, eh? okey dokey.
I wasn't here for a couple weeks-- who and what was I avoiding? Do you have
any other delusions you'd like to share?




> > The truth is, I am equal-opportunity when it comes to
> > > calling someone on the carpet. You aren't.
> >
> >
> > If I thought someone's advice could cause harm to a cat - I'd challenge
> > god himself! Actually, I think you're too liberal and you take too much
for
> > granted. In real life, it might be ok- but not here. I would never
fault
> > someone
> > for erring on the side of caution.
>
> Neither would I and never have I done so.


You take too much for granted and you assume too much. Actually, I think
you're a little reckless.



>
> In the case above, I simply corrected wrong information, which was
> confirmed by Hillary Israeli, MDV. Not every cat needs to be seen by a
> vet for nic membranes showing - the cat could be waking up, sleepy,
> drowsy or content. In the absence of clinical signs of illness,


You don't know if there are no other signs. You can't assume the OP observed
and described the situation accurately. How many times has additional
information come out in a thread that the OP didn't mention at first? If I
were a vet, I wouldn't even attempt to make a diagnosis on the internet.



nic
> membranes are not something to worry about, and YOU know it.


Yes *I* know because *I* know what to look for. I don't assume the OP does
unless I know they know what to look for. Do you think you're doing the cat
and the OP a favor by telling them they don't need to see a vet? What if
you're wrong?

February 10th 06, 10:49 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> "-L." > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Phil P. wrote:
> > >
> > > I would have agreed! The cat could have lost a lot of weight, or was
> > > dehydrated, or had ocular pain, or a neurological disease.
> >
> > So you are now saying - as cyber**** did - that every time a cat shows
> > a nic membrane, it needs to go to the vet, eh?
>
>
> On Usnet, *yes* because I can't *see* the cat.

I'm not talking about ON USENET. I never mentioned USENET.

The question is, if a cat shows a nic membrane does it automatically
need to go to the vet? The answer is clearly NO because nic membranes
show for other reasons.


<snip>

> > Does every cut require a trip to the vet? Just answer the question,
> > Phil. It's not complicated. Yes or no.
>
>
> Probably no.

Thank you.


> >
> > Neither would I and never have I done so.
>
>
> You take too much for granted and you assume too much. Actually, I think
> you're a little reckless.

Give one concrete example. The only thing I do not take for granted is
that the poster is a complete moron, unless it's blatantly obvious that
is the case.

-L.

February 10th 06, 11:12 AM
Phil P. wrote:

> I think all that cocaine has burned out most of Brandy's brain cells and
> Lyn's have been suffocated by an overload of fat globules because I don't
> recall ever saying or implying that I'm a vet or vet tech

You *just did* in this thread - you implied that you had worked as, and
had the title of, vet tech, groomer, nutritionist, and a bunch of other
jobs:

I wrote:

"> I didn't have formal schooling but I did have the title and the
job."

You wrote:

"In that case I guess I could call myself a vet tech... and a vet
assistant...and a nutritionist... and a behaviorist.... and a
groomer...
and a manager... and a pooper scooper... and a butler.. and a janitor.
but
I don't. "

That's disingenuous, at best. You never had *any* of those
professional occupations, nor the titles, and because *I DID* you tried
to belittle me for it by discounting my professional work experience
and occupation. You then go on to mock me in that same post because I
stated I had advanced degrees - which I would not have done at all had
you not questioned my credentials.

It's because of *exactly* this kind of crap that Rhonda and I, and
others, have called you on the carpet for making yourself out to be
"bigger" than you actually are, time and time and time again.

Nobody gives a **** about your ****ing war, Phil. Figure that out,
once and for all.

-L.

Joe Canuck
February 10th 06, 01:58 PM
Rhonda wrote:
> Joe Canuck wrote:
>
>> Rhonda wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Canuck wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd suggest one of the reasons the heat comes from Phil is because
>>>> he has been quite forthright about exactly what his background and
>>>> qualifications are regarding feline care.
>>>
>>> That's interesting. What are his background and qualifications?
>>
>> Archived at Google Groups under this newsgroup... or you can ask him
>> yourself.
>
> No thanks on both options.
>
> Rhonda
>

Well, you are in luck then... Phil just posted his qualifications again
for the nth time. :-D

Joe Canuck
February 10th 06, 02:01 PM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2006 00:10:09 +0100, "cybercat" > wrote:
>
>> "Charlie Wilkes" > wrote
>>
>>>> I can see Charlie's point about professional sluts, but I also want to
>> make
>>>> the point that the two things above make it quite possible to dislike
>> Brandy
>>>> for things that have nothing to do with what she chose to do with her
>> nether
>>>> regions or those of others. I'm all for hard work and the entrepreneurial
>>>> spirit. You have to use what you've got to pay your way, after all.
>>>>
>>> Sure, you can form an opinion of someone for any number of reasons.
>>>
>>> For me, it's possible to disapprove of declawing cats as a matter of
>>> principle, but not dislike someone who does it. I might feel
>>> differently if it were possible for me to imagine that Kami is
>>> anything other than a very content and pampered housecat. For
>>> example, I think Brandy would have boarded Kami when she went to CA
>>> for an extended work assignment, if she viewed Kami as anything other
>>> than a treasured being.
>> Either that or you are being swayed by "the awesome power of the
>> professional slut."
>
> Yeah. I'm a hopeless case. I could illustrate the point by
> describing various humiliating episodes in my past, but why bother? I
> try to keep it in perspective, and not blame someone else for my own
> weaknesses.
>
> Besides, I love pornography. It enriches my life.

You must be joking. Is your life so void without pornography?

>> :)
>>
>>> Brandy is a seasoned Usenet troll. Like others of her ilk, she causes
>>> phonies and ****heads to reveal themselves for what they are.
>> Wow, another awesome power, too!
>>
> Yep. A really good troll causes people to react in a manner that is
> emotional, not rational. When they do so, they reveal much more about
> themselves than they intend. I've seen it before in this group, with
> another individual who is also a damn good troll. I won't name names.
>
> Charlie

Joe Canuck
February 10th 06, 02:03 PM
wrote:
> Phil P. wrote:
>
>> I think all that cocaine has burned out most of Brandy's brain cells and
>> Lyn's have been suffocated by an overload of fat globules because I don't
>> recall ever saying or implying that I'm a vet or vet tech
>
> You *just did* in this thread - you implied that you had worked as, and
> had the title of, vet tech, groomer, nutritionist, and a bunch of other
> jobs:
>
> I wrote:
>
> "> I didn't have formal schooling but I did have the title and the
> job."
>
> You wrote:
>
> "In that case I guess I could call myself a vet tech... and a vet
> assistant...and a nutritionist... and a behaviorist.... and a
> groomer...
> and a manager... and a pooper scooper... and a butler.. and a janitor.
> but
> I don't. "
>
> That's disingenuous, at best. You never had *any* of those
> professional occupations, nor the titles, and because *I DID* you tried
> to belittle me for it by discounting my professional work experience
> and occupation. You then go on to mock me in that same post because I
> stated I had advanced degrees - which I would not have done at all had
> you not questioned my credentials.
>
> It's because of *exactly* this kind of crap that Rhonda and I, and
> others, have called you on the carpet for making yourself out to be
> "bigger" than you actually are, time and time and time again.
>
> Nobody gives a **** about your ****ing war, Phil. Figure that out,
> once and for all.
>
> -L.
>

Now you are just being silly.

Phil P.
February 10th 06, 02:47 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
>
> > I think all that cocaine has burned out most of Brandy's brain cells and
> > Lyn's have been suffocated by an overload of fat globules because I
don't
> > recall ever saying or implying that I'm a vet or vet tech
>
> You *just did* in this thread - you implied that you had worked as, and
> had the title of, vet tech, groomer, nutritionist, and a bunch of other
> jobs:

I said "In that case I guess I could call myself a vet tech... and a vet
assistant...and a nutritionist... and a behaviorist.... and a groomer...
and a manager... and a pooper scooper... and a butler.. and a janitor.but I
don't. "

I said I don't. I didn't say I do or I would, now did I?

>
> I wrote:
>
> "> I didn't have formal schooling but I did have the title and the
> job."
>
> You wrote:
>
> "In that case I guess I could call myself a vet tech... and a vet
> assistant...and a nutritionist... and a behaviorist.... and a
> groomer...
> and a manager... and a pooper scooper... and a butler.. and a janitor.
> but
> I don't. "
>
> That's disingenuous, at best. You never had *any* of those
> professional occupations, nor the titles,


Sure I could. My "job description" covers them all- and then some! The
only difference is I don't get a salary. I could also call myself manager
or director or buyer- which I sometimes do when ordering food, litter, and
other supplies- including test kits.


and because *I DID* you tried
> to belittle me for it by discounting my professional work experience
> and occupation.


I did not. I said I was impressed.


You then go on to mock me in that same post because I
> stated I had advanced degrees -


I did not. Some of my best friends and employees have advanced degrees...


which I would not have done at all had
> you not questioned my credentials.
>
> It's because of *exactly* this kind of crap that Rhonda and I, and
> others, have called you on the carpet for making yourself out to be
> "bigger" than you actually are, time and time and time again.


That's *your* perception and problem- not mine. I don't need to make myself
out to be "bigger" than I actually am. Actually, sometimes I wish I was
"smaller" so I wouldn't have so many responsibilities. What do you do now?


>
> Nobody gives a **** about your ****ing war, Phil. Figure that out,
> once and for all.


Its very obvious that *you* and Rhonda do! LOL!

Gee, aren't you glad we cleared that up? I know I am.

Phil P.
February 10th 06, 02:50 PM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > "-L." > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Phil P. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would have agreed! The cat could have lost a lot of weight, or
was
> > > > dehydrated, or had ocular pain, or a neurological disease.
> > >
> > > So you are now saying - as cyber**** did - that every time a cat
shows
> > > a nic membrane, it needs to go to the vet, eh?
> >
> >
> > On Usnet, *yes* because I can't *see* the cat.
>
> I'm not talking about ON USENET. I never mentioned USENET.

You sure as hell are! Don't try to take your question out of context. You
were referring to an argument you had with Cybercat over a poster's cat with
prolapsing third eyelids.

Since you can't see the cat and you don't know the person- advising the
person to see a vet is *good* advice. I would have done exactly the *same*
thing.

Steve Crane
February 10th 06, 03:28 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >
> > To make this clear Hills Prescription Diet k/d was the first diet
> > formulated, originally called Raritan Ration C. SCIENCE DIET - *NOT*
> > Prescription Diet (did you catch the NOT this time) came much about
> > because of demand from the scientific community for a food they could
> > feed in long term trials involving dogs. Hill's produced those foods
> > upon demand and from that the commercial product - SCIENCE DIET - NOT,
> > repeat NOT, Prescription Diet was born.
>
> Perhaps you should tell your boss and the Morris Animal Foundation that
> their company history is wrong and yours is right.

Phil are you OK? I cannot believe you are being this deliberately
OBTUSE. This is not the Phil I know. Nowhere have I EVER said that
Precription Diet k/d was not the FIRST food made by Hill's. NOWHERE!

Let's set a chronology for you in simple terms

1. Raritan Ration C developed in 1946 for Buddy the first seeing eye
dog in the US.

2. Prescription Diet Canine k/d - in canned form to enable Morris
Frank, the blind owner of Buddy the first seeing eye dog, to travel
without breaking the glass jars Mrs. Morris used in home canning, was
developed shortly thereafter.

3. Science Diet - NOT Prescription Diet - was created to meet the needs
of drug manufacturers like Pfizer and Eli Lilly in the late 50's and
early 60's. Science Diet was introduced to the retail market on May
1st, 1968, almost 20 years AFTER Precription Diet k/d was launched.

Nowhere have I said anything different, despite your attempts to cut
and paste wording.

February 10th 06, 04:25 PM
Steve Crane wrote:
> Phil P. wrote:
> > "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> > >
> > > To make this clear Hills Prescription Diet k/d was the first diet
> > > formulated, originally called Raritan Ration C. SCIENCE DIET - *NOT*
> > > Prescription Diet (did you catch the NOT this time) came much about
> > > because of demand from the scientific community for a food they could
> > > feed in long term trials involving dogs. Hill's produced those foods
> > > upon demand and from that the commercial product - SCIENCE DIET - NOT,
> > > repeat NOT, Prescription Diet was born.
> >
> > Perhaps you should tell your boss and the Morris Animal Foundation that
> > their company history is wrong and yours is right.
>
> Phil are you OK? I cannot believe you are being this deliberately
> OBTUSE. This is not the Phil I know. Nowhere have I EVER said that
> Precription Diet k/d was not the FIRST food made by Hill's. NOWHERE!
>
> Let's set a chronology for you in simple terms
>
> 1. Raritan Ration C developed in 1946 for Buddy the first seeing eye
> dog in the US.
>
> 2. Prescription Diet Canine k/d - in canned form to enable Morris
> Frank, the blind owner of Buddy the first seeing eye dog, to travel
> without breaking the glass jars Mrs. Morris used in home canning, was
> developed shortly thereafter.
>
> 3. Science Diet - NOT Prescription Diet - was created to meet the needs
> of drug manufacturers like Pfizer and Eli Lilly in the late 50's and
> early 60's. Science Diet was introduced to the retail market on May
> 1st, 1968, almost 20 years AFTER Precription Diet k/d was launched.
>
> Nowhere have I said anything different, despite your attempts to cut
> and paste wording.

That helps. I see a bit of confusion. If you read your original reply
post quickly, there's a temptation to run one sentence into the other.
Perhaps the sentences could have been separated by a paragraph since
they are somewhat non-sequitors, that is, Prescription Diet and Science
Diet vis-a-vis orgins. But since it's the same company I could see why
you put both in the same paragraph.

But this is a good thread if somewhat contentious. I would like to
start a new thread to continue this since it's now not the original
phosphorus question and it's difficult to read in the new version of
Google new, for sure when it's over 100 posts! Google is not the best
newsreader. I really need to fire something else up again. I had used
tin on unix and even Outlook Express.

By the way, did Science Diet or Prescription Diet or Hills in general
make the laboratory food that was fed to mice and rats way back when? I
am thinking of what, the 70's or 60's when experiments were done for
the drugs companies but they cut the food kilocalories almost in half
if not in fact by half and the mice or rats lived twice as long?
Somewhere in my notes I have the name of this food, it was standard lab
fare which I guess changed depending on the type of rats or mice.

PawsForThought
February 10th 06, 07:08 PM
wrote:
But this is a good thread if somewhat contentious. I would like to
> start a new thread to continue this since it's now not the original
> phosphorus question and it's difficult to read in the new version of
> Google new, for sure when it's over 100 posts! Google is not the best
> newsreader. I really need to fire something else up again. I had used
> tin on unix and even Outlook Express.

What is your problem with reading the posts on Google? I find it
really simple, and probably even simpler than my newsreader. Are you
looking at the posts in a tree view? It's much easier that way :)

cybercat
February 10th 06, 07:34 PM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
> >Either that or you are being swayed by "the awesome power of the
> >professional slut."
>
> Yeah. I'm a hopeless case. I could illustrate the point by
> describing various humiliating episodes in my past, but why bother? I
> try to keep it in perspective, and not blame someone else for my own
> weaknesses.

A good policy. :)

> Besides, I love pornography. It enriches my life.

Enrichment is good. I must admit that I have seen some downright
beautiful erotic photos and vignettes. I can say that if I call them
"erotica,"
but am not strong enough to say "I love pornography!" Please allow me
my few flimsy pretentions!

> >>
> >> Brandy is a seasoned Usenet troll. Like others of her ilk, she causes
> >> phonies and ****heads to reveal themselves for what they are.
> >
> >Wow, another awesome power, too!
> >
> Yep. A really good troll causes people to react in a manner that is
> emotional, not rational. When they do so, they reveal much more about
> themselves than they intend. I've seen it before in this group, with
> another individual who is also a damn good troll. I won't name names.
>

I bet I know who you mean! I know another one too. Another truth:
the resulting ruckus is sometimes not amusing!

Charlie Wilkes
February 10th 06, 09:47 PM
On 10 Feb 2006 19:34:15 +0100, "cybercat" > wrote:

>
>"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
>> >Either that or you are being swayed by "the awesome power of the
>> >professional slut."
>>
>> Yeah. I'm a hopeless case. I could illustrate the point by
>> describing various humiliating episodes in my past, but why bother? I
>> try to keep it in perspective, and not blame someone else for my own
>> weaknesses.
>
>A good policy. :)
>
>> Besides, I love pornography. It enriches my life.
>
>Enrichment is good. I must admit that I have seen some downright
>beautiful erotic photos and vignettes. I can say that if I call them
>"erotica,"
>but am not strong enough to say "I love pornography!" Please allow me
>my few flimsy pretentions!

I reserve my judgement. I think many people, women especially, are
sincerely repelled by porn. Good porn is seldom beautiful and often
disturbing. It's meant to vivify the ugly, cruel, infantile and
wholly irrational fantasies that accompany the sexual impulse,
particularly the male sexual impulse.

Somewhere in this house I have a copy of the collected poems of Philip
Larkin. Larkin was a porn-hound, a virulent racist, and a good
student of his own, not very lofty, human nature. What Orwell is to
left-wing politics, Larkin is to male sexuality -- sympathetic, but
unsparingly honest. Good reading.

Charlie

NMR
February 10th 06, 10:22 PM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
> On 10 Feb 2006 19:34:15 +0100, "cybercat" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
>>> >Either that or you are being swayed by "the awesome power of the
>>> >professional slut."
>>>
>>> Yeah. I'm a hopeless case. I could illustrate the point by
>>> describing various humiliating episodes in my past, but why bother? I
>>> try to keep it in perspective, and not blame someone else for my own
>>> weaknesses.
>>
>>A good policy. :)
>>
>>> Besides, I love pornography. It enriches my life.
>>
>>Enrichment is good. I must admit that I have seen some downright
>>beautiful erotic photos and vignettes. I can say that if I call them
>>"erotica,"
>>but am not strong enough to say "I love pornography!" Please allow me
>>my few flimsy pretentions!
>
> I reserve my judgement. I think many people, women especially, are
> sincerely repelled by porn. Good porn is seldom beautiful and often
> disturbing. It's meant to vivify the ugly, cruel, infantile and
> wholly irrational fantasies that accompany the sexual impulse,
> particularly the male sexual impulse.
>
> Somewhere in this house I have a copy of the collected poems of Philip
> Larkin. Larkin was a porn-hound, a virulent racist, and a good
> student of his own, not very lofty, human nature. What Orwell is to
> left-wing politics, Larkin is to male sexuality -- sympathetic, but
> unsparingly honest. Good reading.
>
> Charlie
>
he was required reading in college I remember this poem by him. He was a
scary guy with a deep thought process



Even so distant, I can taste the grief,
Bitter and sharp with stalks, he made you gulp.
The sun's occasional print, the brisk brief
Worry of wheels along the street outside
Where bridal London bows the other way,
And light, unanswerable and tall and wide,
Forbids the scar to heal, and drives
Shame out of hiding. All the unhurried day,
Your mind lay open like a drawer of knives.

Slums, years, have buried you. I would not dare
Console you if I could. What can be said,
Except that suffering is exact, but where
Desire takes charge, readings will grow erratic?
For you would hardly care
That you were less deceived, out on that bed,
Than he was, stumbling up the breathless stair
To burst into fulfillment's desolate attic.

Deceptions by Philip Larkin

February 10th 06, 11:53 PM
PawsForThought wrote:
> wrote:
> But this is a good thread if somewhat contentious. I would like to
> > start a new thread to continue this since it's now not the original
> > phosphorus question and it's difficult to read in the new version of
> > Google new, for sure when it's over 100 posts! Google is not the best
> > newsreader. I really need to fire something else up again. I had used
> > tin on unix and even Outlook Express.
>
> What is your problem with reading the posts on Google? I find it
> really simple, and probably even simpler than my newsreader. Are you
> looking at the posts in a tree view? It's much easier that way :)

Within the last two days, Google has changed its reader with the
following problems for me:

The posts are no longer numbered so going from the tree outline to the
posts is not as simple as before. This is a big pain if there are many
posts from the same person or two in a particular part of the tree and
I wish to focus on just one of those posts.

Two, when I resize the view which I do after minimizing the tree
outline, Google shifts quite a bit so the post I was looking at has to
be found again. It's somewhere there but before it was right there
regardless of resizings. I assume these are bugs and not features but
who knows - we used to say, not a bug but a feature, NABBAF.

PawsForThought
February 11th 06, 12:18 AM
wrote:
> Within the last two days, Google has changed its reader with the
> following problems for me:
>
> The posts are no longer numbered so going from the tree outline to the
> posts is not as simple as before. This is a big pain if there are many
> posts from the same person or two in a particular part of the tree and
> I wish to focus on just one of those posts.

That's odd. Mine are still numbered.

> Two, when I resize the view which I do after minimizing the tree
> outline, Google shifts quite a bit so the post I was looking at has to
> be found again. It's somewhere there but before it was right there
> regardless of resizings. I assume these are bugs and not features but
> who knows - we used to say, not a bug but a feature, NABBAF.

LOL! Well I do hope it's just a bug for you and clears up soon.

Steve Crane
February 11th 06, 01:10 AM
wrote:
> Within the last two days, Google has changed its reader with the
> following problems for me:
>
> The posts are no longer numbered so going from the tree outline to the
> posts is not as simple as before. This is a big pain if there are many
> posts from the same person or two in a particular part of the tree and
> I wish to focus on just one of those posts.
>
> Two, when I resize the view which I do after minimizing the tree
> outline, Google shifts quite a bit so the post I was looking at has to
> be found again. It's somewhere there but before it was right there
> regardless of resizings. I assume these are bugs and not features but
> who knows - we used to say, not a bug but a feature, NABBAF.


Agreed - what a royal pain in the ass - it takes far longer to figure
out what post is what without the numbering - I sure hope this isn't
what they intend to stick with.

February 11th 06, 02:00 AM
Phil P. wrote:
>
> You sure as hell are! Don't try to take your question out of context.

I think I know the question I asked, Phil. It was a very simple
question. I asked it at least two times, directly.

> You
> were referring to an argument you had with Cybercat over a poster's cat with
> prolapsing third eyelids.

I wasn't asking about the cat in the photo or I would have linked to
the photo. I asked a simple question. You are insisting on making it
complicated for no reason other than you want to "agree' with
cyber****.

>
> Since you can't see the cat and you don't know the person- advising the
> person to see a vet is *good* advice. I would have done exactly the *same*
> thing.

Just to clarify since you ADMITTEDLY were not here, this is what
transpired:
The cat had just awaken per the OP. The OP was not asking anything
about the cat's nic membrane showing, nor about the cat's health. He
was just showing a photo of the cat and talking about something else
entirely.

She made the statement (parapharasing) "You need to take your cat to
the vet, Asshole! It's third eye lid is showing!" Which is a
ridiculous statement being that A) The cat wasn't sick per the OP, and
B) the cat had just awaken. Hillary Israeli (who IS a vet, mind you)
looked at the OP and the photo and said the same thing.

So stick to what you know, Phil, and not what you THINK happened. And
in the future, answer the questions asked, with integrity. If you have
any left, that is.

-L.

PawsForThought
February 11th 06, 02:39 AM
Steve Crane wrote:
> wrote:
> > Within the last two days, Google has changed its reader with the
> > following problems for me:
> >
> > The posts are no longer numbered so going from the tree outline to the
> > posts is not as simple as before. This is a big pain if there are many
> > posts from the same person or two in a particular part of the tree and
> > I wish to focus on just one of those posts.
> >
> > Two, when I resize the view which I do after minimizing the tree
> > outline, Google shifts quite a bit so the post I was looking at has to
> > be found again. It's somewhere there but before it was right there
> > regardless of resizings. I assume these are bugs and not features but
> > who knows - we used to say, not a bug but a feature, NABBAF.
>
>
> Agreed - what a royal pain in the ass - it takes far longer to figure
> out what post is what without the numbering - I sure hope this isn't
> what they intend to stick with.

I don't know what's going on. I hope mine stays the way it is, with
the numbering. What browser are you two using? I do notice they have
some sort of rating system now for posts, LOL

Joe Canuck
February 11th 06, 02:44 AM
PawsForThought wrote:
> Steve Crane wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Within the last two days, Google has changed its reader with the
>>> following problems for me:
>>>
>>> The posts are no longer numbered so going from the tree outline to the
>>> posts is not as simple as before. This is a big pain if there are many
>>> posts from the same person or two in a particular part of the tree and
>>> I wish to focus on just one of those posts.
>>>
>>> Two, when I resize the view which I do after minimizing the tree
>>> outline, Google shifts quite a bit so the post I was looking at has to
>>> be found again. It's somewhere there but before it was right there
>>> regardless of resizings. I assume these are bugs and not features but
>>> who knows - we used to say, not a bug but a feature, NABBAF.
>>
>> Agreed - what a royal pain in the ass - it takes far longer to figure
>> out what post is what without the numbering - I sure hope this isn't
>> what they intend to stick with.
>
> I don't know what's going on. I hope mine stays the way it is, with
> the numbering. What browser are you two using? I do notice they have
> some sort of rating system now for posts, LOL
>

Oh man, I can see that rating system being abused. :-D

PawsForThought
February 11th 06, 02:49 AM
Joe Canuck wrote:

> Oh man, I can see that rating system being abused. :-D

I just gave your post 5 stars. Let's see if it shows up.

cybercat
February 11th 06, 03:49 AM
"NMR" > wrote:
> >
> he was required reading in college I remember this poem by him. He was a
> scary guy with a deep thought process
>
>
>
> Even so distant, I can taste the grief,
> Bitter and sharp with stalks, he made you gulp.
> The sun's occasional print, the brisk brief
> Worry of wheels along the street outside
> Where bridal London bows the other way,
> And light, unanswerable and tall and wide,
> Forbids the scar to heal, and drives
> Shame out of hiding. All the unhurried day,
> Your mind lay open like a drawer of knives.
>
> Slums, years, have buried you. I would not dare
> Console you if I could. What can be said,
> Except that suffering is exact, but where
> Desire takes charge, readings will grow erratic?
> For you would hardly care
> That you were less deceived, out on that bed,
> Than he was, stumbling up the breathless stair
> To burst into fulfillment's desolate attic.
>
> Deceptions by Philip Larkin
>
>

I really like this. Thanks NMR and Charlie, I'll look
into this guy.

NMR
February 11th 06, 03:53 AM
"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NMR" > wrote:
>> >
>> he was required reading in college I remember this poem by him. He was a
>> scary guy with a deep thought process
>>
>>
>>
>> Even so distant, I can taste the grief,
>> Bitter and sharp with stalks, he made you gulp.
>> The sun's occasional print, the brisk brief
>> Worry of wheels along the street outside
>> Where bridal London bows the other way,
>> And light, unanswerable and tall and wide,
>> Forbids the scar to heal, and drives
>> Shame out of hiding. All the unhurried day,
>> Your mind lay open like a drawer of knives.
>>
>> Slums, years, have buried you. I would not dare
>> Console you if I could. What can be said,
>> Except that suffering is exact, but where
>> Desire takes charge, readings will grow erratic?
>> For you would hardly care
>> That you were less deceived, out on that bed,
>> Than he was, stumbling up the breathless stair
>> To burst into fulfillment's desolate attic.
>>
>> Deceptions by Philip Larkin
>>
>>
>
> I really like this. Thanks NMR and Charlie, I'll look
> into this guy.
>

Never thought I would like poetry till I read him. But he makes you think
am I right Charlie about Philip

February 11th 06, 06:16 AM
PawsForThought wrote:
> Steve Crane wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Within the last two days, Google has changed its reader with the
> > > following problems for me:
> > >
> > > The posts are no longer numbered so going from the tree outline to the
> > > posts is not as simple as before. This is a big pain if there are many
> > > posts from the same person or two in a particular part of the tree and
> > > I wish to focus on just one of those posts.
> > >
> > > Two, when I resize the view which I do after minimizing the tree
> > > outline, Google shifts quite a bit so the post I was looking at has to
> > > be found again. It's somewhere there but before it was right there
> > > regardless of resizings. I assume these are bugs and not features but
> > > who knows - we used to say, not a bug but a feature, NABBAF.
> >
> >
> > Agreed - what a royal pain in the ass - it takes far longer to figure
> > out what post is what without the numbering - I sure hope this isn't
> > what they intend to stick with.
>
> I don't know what's going on. I hope mine stays the way it is, with
> the numbering. What browser are you two using? I do notice they have
> some sort of rating system now for posts, LOL

I have tried Internet Explorer 6 and Firefox 1.5.0.1, the latest for
both.
I also have tried with and without Java, the latest version for Java,
also. I have not turned off JavaScripting.

The rating system is when the numbering went out the Windows :) In any
case, the numbers are gone for the time being. I could try different
operating systems, but I am not quite that irritated yet. I'll wait and
see what Google giggles up.

Charlie Wilkes
February 11th 06, 10:07 AM
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:53:02 GMT, "NMR"
> wrote:

>
>"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "NMR" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> he was required reading in college I remember this poem by him. He was a
>>> scary guy with a deep thought process
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even so distant, I can taste the grief,
>>> Bitter and sharp with stalks, he made you gulp.
>>> The sun's occasional print, the brisk brief
>>> Worry of wheels along the street outside
>>> Where bridal London bows the other way,
>>> And light, unanswerable and tall and wide,
>>> Forbids the scar to heal, and drives
>>> Shame out of hiding. All the unhurried day,
>>> Your mind lay open like a drawer of knives.
>>>
>>> Slums, years, have buried you. I would not dare
>>> Console you if I could. What can be said,
>>> Except that suffering is exact, but where
>>> Desire takes charge, readings will grow erratic?
>>> For you would hardly care
>>> That you were less deceived, out on that bed,
>>> Than he was, stumbling up the breathless stair
>>> To burst into fulfillment's desolate attic.
>>>
>>> Deceptions by Philip Larkin
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I really like this. Thanks NMR and Charlie, I'll look
>> into this guy.
>>
>
>Never thought I would like poetry till I read him. But he makes you think
>am I right Charlie about Philip
>
Poetry to me is about describing experience and perception. A good
poet captures something universal and puts it under glass. What makes
poetry different from prose writing is that the words operate on many
levels, so many that it is impossible to analyze or quantify what
makes it all work.

The poem above is a good example of that as well as my comments about
Larkin. It's about the selfish and sometimes destructive nature of
sexual conquest, or at least that is how I read it.

Larkin was a librarian at Hull University in the Midlands. His life
was humdrum even though he was regarded in his lifetime as an
important poet. I can't find my collected poems (out on loan I think)
but here is a short one I remember by heart, called "Administration":

Day by day your estimation clocks up
Who deserves a smile and who a frown
And girls you have to tell to pull their socks up
Are the ones whose pants you'd most like to pull down

Here is another one:

They **** you up, your mum and dad
They may not mean to, but they do
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you
But they were ****ed up in their turn
By fools in old style frocks and coats
Who half the time were soppy stern
And half at one another's throats
Man hands on misery to man
It deepens like a coastal shelf
Get out as early as you can
And don't have any kids yourself.

Both of the above sound like bathroom-wall scribblings, but close
reading shows quite a bit more. But they are examples of Larkin that
might make him sound like much more of a lightweight than he was. He
was very much at home in the 20th century, with its chaos and
alienation, but he was not in any sense a modernist a la Eliot. His
style is more like that of Keats, and he is as good as Keats at his
best, IMO. He died about 15 years ago I believe.

The main practical value of poetry is that it's a good way to kill
time.

Charlie

Phil P.
February 11th 06, 12:32 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> >
> > You sure as hell are! Don't try to take your question out of context.
>
> I think I know the question I asked, Phil. It was a very simple
> question. I asked it at least two times, directly.


And I gave you my answer at least two times. It was a very simple answer.
I don't mind if you don't like it.


>I wasn't asking about the cat in the photo


That's good- because my answer had nothing to do with a cat in a photo.
Your question was "does a cat need to see a vet every time it's nic
membranes are showing?" wasn't it? I gave you my answer, didn't I? What
part of my answer didn't you understand?


>And in the future, answer the questions asked, with integrity


I did. You just didn't like the answer.

In the future, don't try to use me as weapon against people you don't like.

Phil P.
February 11th 06, 01:04 PM
"Steve Crane" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > "Steve Crane" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...



I cannot believe you are being this deliberately
> OBTUSE.


I'm not being obtuse. I'm just getting really annoyed about your incessant
denigration of every other pet food on the market.


>
> Let's set a chronology for you in simple terms


Let's not- because I really don't care.

>
> 1. Raritan Ration C developed in 1946 for Buddy the first seeing eye
> dog in the US.

I didn't see any mention of "Raritan Ration C" in your company's history.

My point was simply the name "Science Diet" and "Recommended by
Veterinarians" are advertising gimmicks.

Arubalisa
February 11th 06, 05:49 PM
I received this info from Purina just this week...

Thank you for contacting Nestlé Purina PetCare Company.

We appreciate your interest in our Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food
Senior formula. The phosphorous in the various flavors of this variety
is as follows:

Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Ocean Whitefish & Rice Dinner in
Sauce = .42%
Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Pacific Salmon Dinner In Sauce =
..30%
Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Savory Beef Dinner In Gravy = .32

Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Turkey & Giblets Dinner In Gravy
= .30%
Friskies(r) Senior Sliced With Lamb & Rice In Gravy = .19%
Friskies(r) Senior Tender Cuts Chicken & Tuna Dinner In Gravy For Cats
= .22%

Arubalisa
February 11th 06, 06:00 PM
Forgot to add, that this was a reply in the form of an email. The
question was submitted at their "contact us" form
https://offers.purina.com/offer.aspx?offer=CNT01&OfferAction=CONTACT

The reply was received the same day that I submitted the question.

February 11th 06, 06:42 PM
Arubalisa wrote:
> I received this info from Purina just this week...
>
> Thank you for contacting Nestlé Purina PetCare Company.
>
> We appreciate your interest in our Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food
> Senior formula. The phosphorous in the various flavors of this variety
> is as follows:
>
> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Ocean Whitefish & Rice Dinner in
> Sauce = .42%
> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Pacific Salmon Dinner In Sauce =
> .30%
> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Savory Beef Dinner In Gravy = .32
>
> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Turkey & Giblets Dinner In Gravy
> = .30%
> Friskies(r) Senior Sliced With Lamb & Rice In Gravy = .19%
> Friskies(r) Senior Tender Cuts Chicken & Tuna Dinner In Gravy For Cats
> = .22%

Are these numbers on a dry matter basis or on an "as fed" basis? Did
they note that in the email?

cybercat
February 11th 06, 06:45 PM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote

> The main practical value of poetry is that it's a good way to kill
> time.
>

Actually, it is and always has been my favorite creation.

As for killing time--wow, do you have enough to kill?

I need more hours in the day.

But I love that feeling--always an illusion--that you have
all the time in the world.

(This is about as good as OT gets in the cat groups! Porn and
poetry, yayah!) :)

cybercat
February 11th 06, 07:30 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> >
> > You sure as hell are! Don't try to take your question out of context.
>
> I think I know the question I asked, Phil. It was a very simple
> question. I asked it at least two times, directly.
>
> > You
> > were referring to an argument you had with Cybercat over a poster's cat
with
> > prolapsing third eyelids.
>
> I wasn't asking about the cat in the photo or I would have linked to
> the photo. I asked a simple question. You are insisting on making it
> complicated for no reason other than you want to "agree' with
> cyber****.
>

What I love is that you are so full of misplaced rage that you cannot see
that all you do when you resort to juvenile language like this is display
your
coarse, trashy core to the world. I just love this. The sad thing is, when
your son is old
enough to read, he is going to have the proof of what his mother really is
in black
and white, where you have splashed your hideousness all over Usenet. That
I don't love. No child deserves that.

I wish you would get help for all that barely suppressed rage before it
hurts
someone--like your son. Or your husband, who cannot know that you have
posted the things you have posted about him. Or you. This kind of seething
anger can cause lots of health problems. That's right, you already HAVE lots
of
health problems.

February 11th 06, 08:02 PM
Arubalisa wrote:
> I received this info from Purina just this week...
> Thank you for contacting Nestlé Purina PetCare Company.
> We appreciate your interest in our Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food
> Senior formula. The phosphorous in the various flavors of this variety
> is as follows:
> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Ocean Whitefish & Rice Dinner in Sauce=.42%
> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Pacific Salmon Dinner In Sauce=.30%

This should be enough phosphorus to light a match and kill the poor
Seniors.
What are they doing?

This is As Fed, I bet, and if using their usual 78% moisture, you're
looking at .42/.22 and that's almost 2% phosphorus on a dry matter
basis. 1.91% to be more exact.

That's almost criminal.

That's almost about three times the phosphorus amount I like to give an
older cat.

Any thoughts or opinions on that now?

Come on, don't be shy.

I'll bet when I differentiate between Dry Matter Basis and As Fed, and
discuss actual guidelines and ranges for the big P [phosphorus's
chemical letter], the people at Purina know I am not going to be
pleased with these kinds of numbers. So they hold out for a while. It's
good to discuss this. Anybody think sky high levels of phosphorus are
irrelevant in an older cat? Even a not so old cat?

> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Savory Beef Dinner In Gravy=.32
> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Turkey & Giblets Dinner In Gravy=..30%
> Friskies(r) Senior Sliced With Lamb & Rice In Gravy = .19%
> Friskies(r) Senior Tender Cuts Chicken & Tuna Dinner In Gravy For Cats=..22%

..19/.22 = .864% which is not too bad, but .5 to just .8% is better.
It's just over the top end so I will consider that if I ever find it in
the supermarkets. But most of these are too high. Does Purina know
something we don't know or they assume these foods are fed only once in
a while or what is going on here. I don't understand where most or the
majority of their products are so high in phosphorus.

Disclaimer: I don't work for any food company. I'm way too critical :)

Joe Canuck
February 11th 06, 08:09 PM
wrote:
> Arubalisa wrote:
>> I received this info from Purina just this week...
>> Thank you for contacting Nestlé Purina PetCare Company.
>> We appreciate your interest in our Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food
>> Senior formula. The phosphorous in the various flavors of this variety
>> is as follows:
>> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Ocean Whitefish & Rice Dinner in Sauce=.42%
>> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Pacific Salmon Dinner In Sauce=.30%
>
> This should be enough phosphorus to light a match and kill the poor
> Seniors.
> What are they doing?
>
> This is As Fed, I bet, and if using their usual 78% moisture, you're
> looking at .42/.22 and that's almost 2% phosphorus on a dry matter
> basis. 1.91% to be more exact.
>
> That's almost criminal.
>
> That's almost about three times the phosphorus amount I like to give an
> older cat.
>
> Any thoughts or opinions on that now?
>
> Come on, don't be shy.
>
> I'll bet when I differentiate between Dry Matter Basis and As Fed, and
> discuss actual guidelines and ranges for the big P [phosphorus's
> chemical letter], the people at Purina know I am not going to be
> pleased with these kinds of numbers. So they hold out for a while. It's
> good to discuss this. Anybody think sky high levels of phosphorus are
> irrelevant in an older cat? Even a not so old cat?
>
>> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Savory Beef Dinner In Gravy=.32
>> Purina(r) Friskies(r) Cat Food Senior Turkey & Giblets Dinner In Gravy=.30%
>> Friskies(r) Senior Sliced With Lamb & Rice In Gravy = .19%
>> Friskies(r) Senior Tender Cuts Chicken & Tuna Dinner In Gravy For Cats=.22%
>
> .19/.22 = .864% which is not too bad, but .5 to just .8% is better.
> It's just over the top end so I will consider that if I ever find it in
> the supermarkets. But most of these are too high. Does Purina know
> something we don't know or they assume these foods are fed only once in
> a while or what is going on here. I don't understand where most or the
> majority of their products are so high in phosphorus.
>
> Disclaimer: I don't work for any food company. I'm way too critical :)
>

They really would like you to work for them... and critique the competition.

February 11th 06, 11:14 PM
cybercat wrote:
>
> What I love is that you are so full of misplaced rage
<snip "rage">

Um, yeah, right. I'm "raging" because Phil is too retarded to answer
the question asked. You're more of a ****ing retard than he is.

Figures that a post on him lacking integrity would get you all riled
up, since you are the Queen of No Integrity.

Hey - do us all a favor and off yourself before someone does it for
you.

-L.

February 11th 06, 11:59 PM
Margarita Salt wrote:
> Speaking of integrity, I perused maxshouse.com and despite the
> suggestion that medical question be directed to Phil at an email
> address beginning with "clinic" I did not find any place where he
> stated that he was not an educated or degreed professional in
> veterinary medicine. I think he needs to be reported somewhere. It's
> highly deceptive and potentially dangerous.


I checked - he has a disclaimer on his site - at the bottom of the
"About Us' page. The clinic email address is probably because he holds
a clinic in his area where lisenced vets do low-cost vaccines, exams,
etc. - it's not an uncommon practice for a not-profit org to do so. I
have no doubt that Phil runs an excellent service for the cats he
helps; the only thing I have a problem with is his lack of integrity
when it comes to posting on Usenet.

-L.

Joe Canuck
February 12th 06, 12:04 AM
wrote:
> Margarita Salt wrote:
>> Speaking of integrity, I perused maxshouse.com and despite the
>> suggestion that medical question be directed to Phil at an email
>> address beginning with "clinic" I did not find any place where he
>> stated that he was not an educated or degreed professional in
>> veterinary medicine. I think he needs to be reported somewhere. It's
>> highly deceptive and potentially dangerous.
>
>
> I checked - he has a disclaimer on his site - at the bottom of the
> "About Us' page. The clinic email address is probably because he holds
> a clinic in his area where lisenced vets do low-cost vaccines, exams,
> etc. - it's not an uncommon practice for a not-profit org to do so. I
> have no doubt that Phil runs an excellent service for the cats he
> helps; the only thing I have a problem with is his lack of integrity
> when it comes to posting on Usenet.
>
> -L.
>

<sigh>

Another lame troll by Brandy.

Joe Canuck
February 12th 06, 12:24 AM
D. wrote:
> In article >,
> Margarita Salt > wrote:
>
>> Speaking of integrity, I perused maxshouse.com and despite the
>> suggestion that medical question be directed to Phil at an email
>> address beginning with "clinic" I did not find any place where he
>> stated that he was not an educated or degreed professional in
>> veterinary medicine.
>
> I believe he's said he has consulting veterinarians or veterinarians on
> staff. I don't see that he says, "Contact Dr. Phil." Perhaps he acts as
> a gatekeeper for medical-related inquiries. If he wants to, he'll tell
> you how he deals with it.
>
>> I think he needs to be reported somewhere. It's
>> highly deceptive and potentially dangerous.
>
> If you feel strongly about it, feel free to do it yourself and report
> how far you get. I don't think anyone's going to do it for you.
>

Exactly. That is why the post is a troll.

cybercat
February 12th 06, 12:42 AM
"Joe Canuck" > wrote > Exactly. That is why the
post is a troll.
>

Oh, come on, Joe, take her out of your kill file. Everyone needs a worthy
target. It keeps us from taking things out on less deserving ones. [No, I am
not kidding. No smileys, no winky-winkys, nothing. The Brandy's and Lyns of
this world might as well serve some constructive purpose, after all.]

Joe Canuck
February 12th 06, 01:01 AM
cybercat wrote:
> "Joe Canuck" > wrote > Exactly. That is why the
> post is a troll.
>
> Oh, come on, Joe, take her out of your kill file. Everyone needs a worthy
> target. It keeps us from taking things out on less deserving ones. [No, I am
> not kidding. No smileys, no winky-winkys, nothing. The Brandy's and Lyns of
> this world might as well serve some constructive purpose, after all.]
>
>

Well, let me think about it....

Nope!

:-D

February 12th 06, 01:37 AM
Joe Canuck wrote:
> cybercat wrote:
> > "Joe Canuck" > wrote > Exactly. That is why the
> > post is a troll.
> >
> > Oh, come on, Joe, take her out of your kill file. Everyone needs a worthy
> > target. It keeps us from taking things out on less deserving ones. [No, I am
> > not kidding. No smileys, no winky-winkys, nothing. The Brandy's and Lyns of
> > this world might as well serve some constructive purpose, after all.]
> >
> >
>
> Well, let me think about it....
>
> Nope!
>
> :-D

loser!

Joe Canuck
February 12th 06, 01:43 AM
wrote:
> Joe Canuck wrote:
>> cybercat wrote:
>>> "Joe Canuck" > wrote > Exactly. That is why the
>>> post is a troll.
>>>
>>> Oh, come on, Joe, take her out of your kill file. Everyone needs a worthy
>>> target. It keeps us from taking things out on less deserving ones. [No, I am
>>> not kidding. No smileys, no winky-winkys, nothing. The Brandy's and Lyns of
>>> this world might as well serve some constructive purpose, after all.]
>>>
>>>
>> Well, let me think about it....
>>
>> Nope!
>>
>> :-D
>
> loser!
>

Well well. I killfile Brandy and this sock puppet shows up. :-D

Phil P.
February 12th 06, 01:46 AM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...


> Speaking of integrity,


A crack whore talking about integrity! ROTFLMAO!!!




I perused maxshouse.com and despite the
> suggestion that medical question be directed to Phil at an email
> address beginning with "clinic" I did not find any place where he
> stated that he was not an educated or degreed professional in
> veterinary medicine.

That's because you're a burned out crack whore. Read it again:


"This information is for medical reference only and not intended to be used
in place of professional veterinary care. Its purpose is to impart to the
cat owner in-depth information on feline disorders and their veterinary
therapies-helping the
owner feel confident while working in partnership with the veterinarian.
Always consult a veterinarian at the slightest sign of a medical problem.
The information contain herein has been gathered from numerous sources.
Max's House takes no responsibility for the accuracy of that
information, or for the diagnosis or treatment of any animal and again
advises the reader to consult with a veterinarian before attempting any
treatment . Do not attempt any treatment or give your pet any medication
or drug without express consent and authorization from a licensed,
professional veterinarian."



Did you understand that, crack whore? Is that plain enough for to
understand?



I think he needs to be reported somewhere. It's
> highly deceptive and potentially dangerous.


Go for it! You just *better* make sure you're right.

Phil P.
February 12th 06, 01:47 AM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> D. > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>
> > If you feel strongly about it, feel free to do it yourself and
> > report how far you get. I don't think anyone's going to do it for
> > you.
> >
>
> Agreed. I will. There are some choice articles here I can provide to
> support that he practices without a license. When he gives medical
> advice here, that's what he's doing unless his posts carry a disclaimer
> that he's not a vet and his advice should be supported by a vet.

Go for it crack whore. If you **** with me outside of Usenet and you're
wrong- I'll make you wish you died as a child-- Do you understand that crack
whore?

Phil P.
February 21st 06, 08:13 PM
"PawsForThought" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > It just seems that way to you because you know nothing about cats- as
you've
> > demonstrated by screwing up Kami's life. I shudder at the thought of
how
> > many times you "took it out on Kami". She became an aggressive, biting
cat
> > because you're psychotic- she never knew what to expect from you- a pet
or a
> > swat. To make matters worse, you had her declawed in a fit of rage
because
> > some bimbo make-up artist complained about the scratches-- which only
> > increased her biting behavior.
>
> I'm surprised she hasn't had the poor cat's teeth removed :(



Don't give her any ideas.

Phil P.
February 21st 06, 09:26 PM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
> >
> > "PawsForThought" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> Phil P. wrote:
> >> > It just seems that way to you because you know nothing about
> >> > cats- as
> > you've
> >> > demonstrated by screwing up Kami's life. I shudder at the
> >> > thought of
> > how
> >> > many times you "took it out on Kami". She became an
> >> > aggressive, biting
> > cat
> >> > because you're psychotic- she never knew what to expect from
> >> > you- a pet
> > or a
> >> > swat. To make matters worse, you had her declawed in a fit of
> >> > rage
> > because
> >> > some bimbo make-up artist complained about the scratches--
> >> > which only increased her biting behavior.
> >>
> >> I'm surprised she hasn't had the poor cat's teeth removed :(
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't give her any ideas.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Gee, I wonder how often Phil's been peeping through my windows to
> know so much about my life.


Still think you're in peep shows, eh, sleaze? LOL! All that cocaine has
burned out your brain-- you don't remember what you say, do you?. Do you
think you can hide your tracks by deleting your posts?



He can make up anything he likes, and
> take of the interpretations of my comments from other Usenet kooks,


Naa- your comments leave little room for interpretation.


> but that will never, ever create any facts. It's posts like this
> that should help him realize why fewer and fewer people are taking
> him seriously.


That certainly explains why 60,000 people visit my site every month and why
my traffic is steadily increasing. You truly are burned out. LOL!


>
> The veterinary board in NJ is reviewing the Maxshouse site and
> potential the facility for violations.


Only a low-life crack whore would try to attack a animal rescue
organization. If anyone had any doubts that you're a low-life
animal-abusing piece of ****, I'm sure you've just removed every one of
them.

I told you crack whore, if you **** with me outside of Usenet, I'll make you
wish you died as child.



He may not be making it
> clear enough upon entering the site that statements come from a non-
> vet, and they're concerned about who administers restricted care to
> the cats.

LOL! I don't think so.


>
> The man is a wannabe hack. He wants to stay just this side of legal


WOW! You truly are psychotic! ROTFL!

PawsForThought
February 21st 06, 09:47 PM
Margarita Salt wrote:
> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
> > > "PawsForThought" > wrote in message
> >> I'm surprised she hasn't had the poor cat's teeth removed :(
>
> > Don't give her any ideas.

> Gee, I wonder how often Phil's been peeping through my windows to
> know so much about my life. He can make up anything he likes, and
> take of the interpretations of my comments from other Usenet kooks,
> but that will never, ever create any facts. It's posts like this
> that should help him realize why fewer and fewer people are taking
> him seriously.

Nope, I think Phil is right on about you.

> The veterinary board in NJ is reviewing the Maxshouse site and
> potential the facility for violations. He may not be making it
> clear enough upon entering the site that statements come from a non-
> vet, and they're concerned about who administers restricted care to
> the cats.

What an ass you are. Anyone with a 3rd grade educational level can
figure it out from reading the disclaimers on the site. I'm so sure
the NJ vet board is really interested in what you have to say.

cybercat
February 21st 06, 09:52 PM
"PawsForThought" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Margarita Salt wrote:
> > Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
> > > > "PawsForThought" > wrote in message
> > >> I'm surprised she hasn't had the poor cat's teeth removed :(
> >
> > > Don't give her any ideas.
>
> > Gee, I wonder how often Phil's been peeping through my windows to
> > know so much about my life. He can make up anything he likes, and
> > take of the interpretations of my comments from other Usenet kooks,
> > but that will never, ever create any facts. It's posts like this
> > that should help him realize why fewer and fewer people are taking
> > him seriously.
>
> Nope, I think Phil is right on about you.
>

I do too.

cybercat
February 21st 06, 09:53 PM
"Phil P." > wrote :
>
>
> >
> > The man is a wannabe hack. He wants to stay just this side of legal
>
>
> WOW! You truly are psychotic! ROTFL!
>

But she is so credible. :) I mean, really, Phil.

Charlie Wilkes
February 21st 06, 11:20 PM
On 21 Feb 2006 19:39:51 GMT, Margarita Salt
> wrote:
>
>Gee, I wonder how often Phil's been peeping through my windows to
>know so much about my life. He can make up anything he likes, and
>take of the interpretations of my comments from other Usenet kooks,
>but that will never, ever create any facts. It's posts like this
>that should help him realize why fewer and fewer people are taking
>him seriously.
>
>The veterinary board in NJ is reviewing the Maxshouse site and
>potential the facility for violations. He may not be making it
>clear enough upon entering the site that statements come from a non-
>vet, and they're concerned about who administers restricted care to
>the cats.
>
You are wasting people's time, Brandy.

Charlie

NMR
February 22nd 06, 12:24 AM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
>
> Gee, I wonder how often Phil's been peeping through my windows to
> know so much about my life. He can make up anything he likes, and
> take of the interpretations of my comments from other Usenet kooks,
> but that will never, ever create any facts. It's posts like this
> that should help him realize why fewer and fewer people are taking
> him seriously.
>
No comment seems like paraniod dillusions

> The veterinary board in NJ is reviewing the Maxshouse site and
> potential the facility for violations. He may not be making it
> clear enough upon entering the site that statements come from a non-
> vet, and they're concerned about who administers restricted care to
> the cats.
>

How do you know that they are doing this where is the documentation, proof
what you say or where can we look it up to see if it is true.



On another note I wonder if you realizes that if you turned this
organization in on false pretenses. It will open you up to criminal and
civil suits.

CatNipped
February 22nd 06, 12:33 AM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>>
>> "PawsForThought" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> Phil P. wrote:
>>> > It just seems that way to you because you know nothing about
>>> > cats- as
>> you've
>>> > demonstrated by screwing up Kami's life. I shudder at the
>>> > thought of
>> how
>>> > many times you "took it out on Kami". She became an
>>> > aggressive, biting
>> cat
>>> > because you're psychotic- she never knew what to expect from
>>> > you- a pet
>> or a
>>> > swat. To make matters worse, you had her declawed in a fit of
>>> > rage
>> because
>>> > some bimbo make-up artist complained about the scratches--
>>> > which only increased her biting behavior.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised she hasn't had the poor cat's teeth removed :(
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't give her any ideas.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Gee, I wonder how often Phil's been peeping through my windows to
> know so much about my life. He can make up anything he likes, and
> take of the interpretations of my comments from other Usenet kooks,
> but that will never, ever create any facts. It's posts like this
> that should help him realize why fewer and fewer people are taking
> him seriously.
>
> The veterinary board in NJ is reviewing the Maxshouse site and
> potential the facility for violations. He may not be making it
> clear enough upon entering the site that statements come from a non-
> vet, and they're concerned about who administers restricted care to
> the cats.

ROTFLMAOWTIME! They can't prosecute the people who put kiddy porn on the
'net - are you really so delusional that you think someone is going to go
after Phil for putting valid, truthful *veterinary* information on a web
site!!!?????

cybercat
February 22nd 06, 12:41 AM
"NMR" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
> >
> > Gee, I wonder how often Phil's been peeping through my windows to
> > know so much about my life. He can make up anything he likes, and
> > take of the interpretations of my comments from other Usenet kooks,
> > but that will never, ever create any facts. It's posts like this
> > that should help him realize why fewer and fewer people are taking
> > him seriously.
> >
> No comment seems like paraniod dillusions
>


It's wishful thinking. "Brandy" is a bit beyond the age for being a peekee,
after all.

NMR
February 22nd 06, 01:32 AM
I was not talking about the newsgroup anything can be said in a newsgroup
it is the free web after all. I was talking about if you or someone called
the board and reported him or his company under false pretenses that person
would be criminal and civil liable. Even if it was reported anonymous,
calls are logged and can be traced. I am not going to argue with you unless
you are the one that called you have nothing to worry about. Don't believe
me look it up. Judge Judy has a case every week. Since you took the time to
make a large reply post.

WHERE IS THE PROOF THEY ARE INVESTIGATING. If you can't post the info who
would we call to find out if it is true. Where do we look. Till you have
the proof or info Please don't bother even replying

Phil P.
February 22nd 06, 01:34 AM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> NMR > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:


> BTW, Phil doesn't seem to care much about the civil suits I can file
> against him for his libelous statements, so why should I? I DARE him.
> I really do.


If I'm inconvenienced outside of Usenet because of you, a lawsuit will be
the least of your worries, you animal abusing crack whore.



> I'm just going to force the issue to the extent that he has to confess
> that he is not a vet before he says our types anything.


ROTFLMAO! I see all that crack and cocaine has made you delusional. The
only thing you're forcing me to do is laugh.

I really shouldn't antagonize you- You might take it out on Kami-- like you
said you would if you can't "vent" in a newsgroup.

NMR
February 22nd 06, 01:38 AM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...

For your information nothing can be done about statements made about your
character on the usernet. It is only slander if you are defaced in public
the usernet is not a true public forum since we have no real information on
who you really are. The only thing that can be done is if he posted non
public information about you such as credit card number or bank account info

And if you are going to force the issue He already has stated many of times
if you bothered to pay attention that he is not a vet

NMR
February 22nd 06, 01:39 AM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>

Good lord Phil had did you ever get such a groupie

Charlie Wilkes
February 22nd 06, 03:14 AM
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:34:06 GMT, "Phil P." >
wrote:

>
>"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
>> NMR > wrote in
>> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>
>> BTW, Phil doesn't seem to care much about the civil suits I can file
>> against him for his libelous statements, so why should I? I DARE him.
>> I really do.
>
>
>If I'm inconvenienced outside of Usenet because of you, a lawsuit will be
>the least of your worries, you animal abusing crack whore.
>
What are you going to do?

Charlie

>
>
>> I'm just going to force the issue to the extent that he has to confess
>> that he is not a vet before he says our types anything.
>
>
>ROTFLMAO! I see all that crack and cocaine has made you delusional. The
>only thing you're forcing me to do is laugh.
>
>I really shouldn't antagonize you- You might take it out on Kami-- like you
>said you would if you can't "vent" in a newsgroup.
>
>

Rescue
February 22nd 06, 03:58 AM
Margarita Salt wrote:

> You get that from Judge Judy, too? Not surprised that you're wrong.

your opinion of Phil's advice is speculative

i think you was yankin his chain, but then Phil acted a little
scared...

Why don't you just ask him if he is giving bad advice, you never know
maybe he will tell you yes!

PHIL! ARE YOU GIVING OUT BAD ADVICE?

He said no

WELL! Im satisfied!
LOL...

there's alot of things one can contrive from ANY advice given.

the disclaimer here is assumed

NMR
February 22nd 06, 04:06 AM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> NMR > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>> Don't believe
>> me look it up. Judge Judy has a case every week.
>
> BWAHAHAHA!!!! You think THAT crap represents LAW? How stupid are you?

Gee represent small claim court and at my last look small claims was part of
the court and law system

>
> WHERE IS THE PROOF THEY ARE INVESTIGATING. If you can't post the info
> who would we call to find out if it is true. Where do we look. Till
> you have the proof or info Please don't bother even replying
>
> I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I didn't do it to get
> some piece of paper to wave under someone's nose. I made a call, had a
> conversation, faxed some articles, gave them a link, gave my contact
> info, and whatever they do with that is entirely up to them.
>

I never said I didn't believe just wanted proof or a way to see if it was
true you failed to provide yet this still

If it was true than Phil would have some explaining to do but since you
admitted that it is not true than you have a lot of explaining to do

So you admit that you made the call. I don't think you realize your public
traceable statement but if you can't figure it out yourself your own
problem

And also you just admitted that you lied you stated that they were under
review in your earlier post. You want to rephrase your earlier statement
to clear that matters up or keep the post and showed you just lied to the
group and were caught in the act.

> Perhaps if Phil keeps up his defamation of me, I'll ship a pile of his
> posts off to his local newspaper. That should be rich--"Local Cat
> Rescuer Abuses People Instead"
>

I am not even going to comment since it would take a very large crayon book
to explain to your about defmation of character and I don't have the
patience for it.


And If you are wondering why I am commenting and getting involved. I just
had someone like yourself who was fired for stealing that person made some
phone calls and made statements about my establishment. Guess what there is
now civil and criminal charges against this person. This really ****ed me
off now you just did this to Phil and the rescue organization because of
what reason OH yeah BS
> --
> Margarita Salt
>
> "...practically no one in the world is entirely bad or
> entirely good... motives are often more important than
> actions." -- Eleanore Roosevelt

NMR
February 22nd 06, 04:08 AM
>> "Margarita Salt" > wrote in
>> message ...

doing your best to come out on top now that you were caught in a Lie

As I said PHIL has stated that many times specially when him and L were
arguing

John Doe
February 22nd 06, 04:18 AM
NMR wrote:

> doing your best to come out on top now that you were caught in a Lie
>
> As I said PHIL has stated that many times specially when him and L were
> arguing

Troll!

NMR
February 22nd 06, 04:23 AM
"John Doe" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> NMR wrote:
>
>> doing your best to come out on top now that you were caught in a Lie
>>
>> As I said PHIL has stated that many times specially when him and L were
>> arguing
>
> Troll!

Don't you start Barry I only have one crayon book and it is for her :-)

Phil P.
February 22nd 06, 04:52 AM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> NMR > wrote in


> >WHERE IS THE PROOF THEY ARE INVESTIGATING. If you can't post the info
> who would we call to find out if it is true. Where do we look. Till
> you have the proof or info Please don't bother even replying
>
> I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I didn't do it to get
> some piece of paper to wave under someone's nose. I made a call, had a
> conversation, faxed some articles, gave them a link, gave my contact
> info, and whatever they do with that is entirely up to them.


IOW, they laughed and humored you. Where you high when you called? Did you
take your frustration out on Kami again?

>
> Perhaps if Phil keeps up his defamation of me,


And what defamation would that be? You *are* an animal abuser by own
admission and the rest is publicly known information.



I'll ship a pile of his
> posts off to his local newspaper.

LOL! You're well know for making threats--- I heard you even tried to sue
an ex-boyfriend for pain and suffering after he broke up with you! That's
hysterical! ROTFL!



That should be rich--"Local Cat
> Rescuer Abuses People Instead"

Actually, the headline would read "Local Cat Rescuer Abuses Animal Abuser".
I kinda like it- has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

cybercat
February 22nd 06, 05:00 AM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > NMR > wrote in
>
>
> > >WHERE IS THE PROOF THEY ARE INVESTIGATING. If you can't post the info
> > who would we call to find out if it is true. Where do we look. Till
> > you have the proof or info Please don't bother even replying
> >
> > I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I didn't do it to get
> > some piece of paper to wave under someone's nose. I made a call, had a
> > conversation, faxed some articles, gave them a link, gave my contact
> > info, and whatever they do with that is entirely up to them.
>
>
> IOW, they laughed and humored you. Where you high when you called? Did
you
> take your frustration out on Kami again?
>
> >
> > Perhaps if Phil keeps up his defamation of me,
>
>
> And what defamation would that be? You *are* an animal abuser by own
> admission and the rest is publicly known information.
>
>
>
> I'll ship a pile of his
> > posts off to his local newspaper.
>
> LOL! You're well know for making threats--- I heard you even tried to sue
> an ex-boyfriend for pain and suffering after he broke up with you! That's
> hysterical! ROTFL!
>
>
>
> That should be rich--"Local Cat
> > Rescuer Abuses People Instead"
>
> Actually, the headline would read "Local Cat Rescuer Abuses Animal
Abuser".
> I kinda like it- has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
>

I think so. :)

NMR
February 22nd 06, 05:08 AM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> NMR > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>> I never said I didn't believe just wanted proof or a way to see
>> if it was true you failed to provide yet this still
>
> What would serve as proof to your little pea brain. Like I said, they
> don't serve up a notarized copy for a phone call. Tell me EXACTLY what
> you're looking for.

Again you admitted you made the call never mind I don't have an etch and
sketch to show you


Why don't you reread the post and other previous post or is it not in
crayon or simpleton for you to understand

I noticed that you sniped that part about being caught in the lie.

Phil P.
February 22nd 06, 05:32 AM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> NMR > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:


Ask him about Tax fraud and 501(c)(3)
> scams.


Getting desperate, eh, crack-whore? Just don't take it out on Kami again.



>It seems I should have called the IRS, not the vet examiners.


You should have-- You would have given them a good laugh, too!

NMR
February 22nd 06, 06:00 AM
"Margarita Salt" > wrote in message
...
> NMR > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>>
>> "Margarita Salt" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> NMR > wrote in
>>> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>>>
>>>> I never said I didn't believe just wanted proof or a way to see
>>>> if it was true you failed to provide yet this still
>>>
>>> What would serve as proof to your little pea brain. Like I said,
>>> they don't serve up a notarized copy for a phone call. Tell me
>>> EXACTLY what you're looking for.
>>
>> Again you admitted you made the call never mind I don't have an
>> etch and sketch to show you
>>
>>
>> Why don't you reread the post and other previous post or is it
>> not in crayon or simpleton for you to understand
>>
>> I noticed that you sniped that part about being caught in the lie.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Probably because I wasn't and it didn't deserve comment. Personally,
> when someone tells me they'll look into it, I consider that a review.
> Your mileage may vary.
>
ROFLMAO you back peddle well
you are one to talk about mileage hahahahahaha

AlexZ
February 22nd 06, 06:43 AM
Dear Margarita,

This is a cats newgroup; why are we discussing Phil? Whatever you think
of the guy, he is certainly not a cat. :-)

Relax and take it easy a little.

Alex

: Gee, I wonder how often Phil's been peeping through my windows to
: know so much about my life. He can make up anything he likes, and
: take of the interpretations of my comments from other Usenet kooks,
: but that will never, ever create any facts. It's posts like this
: that should help him realize why fewer and fewer people are taking
: him seriously.
:
: The veterinary board in NJ is reviewing the Maxshouse site and
: potential the facility for violations. He may not be making it
: clear enough upon entering the site that statements come from a non-
: vet, and they're concerned about who administers restricted care to
: the cats.
:
: The man is a wannabe hack. He wants to stay just this side of legal
: without tipping his hand too far that he is completely without
: education and claims that because he read books he's more
: knowledgeable than a vet. I read step my step, with photos, how to
: do an appendectomy. That DOES NOT mean I'm qualified to actually do
: one.