Allergies, Linear Granuloma, and Diet

From: ospam (Yngver)

I did a quick search but I couldn't find the post you are referring to. I
only
see your posts repeating the above. Perhaps you have a citation. Given that
there has been a lot of misinterpretation going on here, I'd like to read
the
post myself to see what was actually said.

It was only about 2 weeks or so ago.

Then you should be able to find it easily, since you remember the key words.

I have no reason to go back and review my own words. What would I get out of
such an exercise?

Aha! You just did the same thing--making an imprecise statement that someone
else could misconstrue--that with Lauren you intrepret as a deliberate lie.
Since you didn't clarify in your original statement that you were only
referring to her previous cats, I could now surmise you were lying, correct?

I am simply repeating what Lauren said. I never said she "deliberately lied".
I now don't trust what she has said because it changes daily. She does seem to
want to mislead and she has admitted that she hates Hill's and is on an
anti-Hill's agenda. Why are you all of a sudden an apologist for her? If you
want to drop the image of impartiality and side w/ her, you do so at your own
risk!

You can see how convoluted Lauren has made
this.

No more convoluted than any long thread, and you have done the same thing.

By taking what she says and applying an entirely new context, you are the one
convoluting things while Lauren watches, and smiles.

Just look at the quotes that Phil P dug up from her and you'll see
what
I mean.

I looked. When she said she fed SD once, she meant one period of time. I
would
say the same thing. When she said she never fed SD, she meant to her current
cats. Where's the lie?

You are deluded. Did you read each of her posts that Phil supplied? They
contradict each other! Why are you apologizing for her?

That's not to mention all of the "new" problems that she mentioned
(after the fact of course) late this summer. Someone mentioned their cat
had
impacted or full anal glands and then Lauren piped up and said her cats had
them too and they were CAUSED by Science Diet.

Isn't that what her vet suggested?

NO! The image of impartiality that you claim to have is disappearing faster
than a mirage!

I have corresponded with
her about her cat's asthma because one of my cats developed a mild case.
Can
you find a single post in which she blamed SD for her cat's asthma?

I haven't looked, but judging from her other posts, it wouldn't surprise me
at
all if tried to attribute that to Science Diet as well.

See, that's the thing. You can't find such a post because she never said
that,
but you are more than eager enough to think the worst.

How do you know? You can't find a post that she made just a couple of weeks
ago. AND you're ignoring the part where I said I HAVEN'T LOOKED! Again, it
wouldn't surprise me at all if Lauren made that claim; she makes other bogus
claims.

From: ospam (Yngver)

If you girls

Whoa! Pardon me?

don't see this, then you must be blind! You have got to admit
that Lauren's stories change like the weather depending on the situation.

Prove it.

I don't have to, Phil already did (actually Lauren already did)--he just
pointed it out again and again and again and again.......

Phil
P even quoted her own posts (a number of them) over a period of the last 2
or
3
years. She is clearly contradicting herself!

No, that conclusion is not clear at all to a fair-minded reader.


What exactly do you call fair-minded?? You have absolutely got to be kidding?!
A 10 yr old can see the inconsistencies in her various posts over the years.
You however, can not. You really need to get off of your "impartiality"
stance, because it's is blinding you to the reality of her own (contradictory)
words.

She is so busy bashing
anything
Hill's related, that she loses track of her stories. That's my problem w/
her.
She doesn't even try to be fair. It's somewhat telling that the females
can't
or won't see it and the males point out the inconsistencies.

You're sort of a jerk, aren't you? It is true, of course, that women
generally
have better language skills than men, so it you want to start making gender
assumptions, perhaps the reason you "boys" are finding these so-called
inconsistencies and we aren't is because we are better at reading
comprehension
than you are. How's that for a stereotypical answer?


First of all you aren't addressing the fact that she has admitted an anti-Hills
agenda and doesn't even try to appear fair. What's up w/ that? Do you have an
excuse for her for that, too? As for making an observation (that just turns
out to be true by the looks of things), if the females would look at things
analytically and not emotionally, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You
claim to be impartial, and then you play dumb when you deny the fact that
Lauren's own words contradict each other. I don't know why you can't see
what's right in front of you. As for reading comprehension, you've got to be
kidding me! Reading comprehension skills is what is pointing out her
inconsistencies! You've got it entirely backwards!

Lauren doesn't
even try to defend herself on this at all. She calls names. You don't
think
that is "fishy"?

You "boys" have been doing a lot more name calling than she has--so by your
reasoning, that ought to make your arguments even fishier, huh?

See, now I KNOW you're not impartial. Lauren and Phil have been back and forth
on the name calling. If you want to lump me in there, you need to go back and
count up the examples and then compare them w/ each other!

Let's see if I've got this straight: Lauren (by her own admission hates Hill's
and has NOTHING good to say about them at all) makes many contradictory
statements over the years and when she gets called on the carpet for it by
Phil, or myself, or anyone else for that matter....the "impartial" ones can't
find any reason to suspect any wrongdoing on her part and instead want to
apologize for her behavior and words. Is that about right?

From: ospam (Yngver)

If you girls

Whoa! Pardon me?

don't see this, then you must be blind! You have got to admit
that Lauren's stories change like the weather depending on the situation.

Prove it.

I don't have to, Phil already did (actually Lauren already did)--he just
pointed it out again and again and again and again.......

Phil
P even quoted her own posts (a number of them) over a period of the last 2
or
3
years. She is clearly contradicting herself!

No, that conclusion is not clear at all to a fair-minded reader.


What exactly do you call fair-minded?? You have absolutely got to be kidding?!
A 10 yr old can see the inconsistencies in her various posts over the years.
You however, can not. You really need to get off of your "impartiality"
stance, because it's is blinding you to the reality of her own (contradictory)
words.

She is so busy bashing
anything
Hill's related, that she loses track of her stories. That's my problem w/
her.
She doesn't even try to be fair. It's somewhat telling that the females
can't
or won't see it and the males point out the inconsistencies.

You're sort of a jerk, aren't you? It is true, of course, that women
generally
have better language skills than men, so it you want to start making gender
assumptions, perhaps the reason you "boys" are finding these so-called
inconsistencies and we aren't is because we are better at reading
comprehension
than you are. How's that for a stereotypical answer?


First of all you aren't addressing the fact that she has admitted an anti-Hills
agenda and doesn't even try to appear fair. What's up w/ that? Do you have an
excuse for her for that, too? As for making an observation (that just turns
out to be true by the looks of things), if the females would look at things
analytically and not emotionally, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You
claim to be impartial, and then you play dumb when you deny the fact that
Lauren's own words contradict each other. I don't know why you can't see
what's right in front of you. As for reading comprehension, you've got to be
kidding me! Reading comprehension skills is what is pointing out her
inconsistencies! You've got it entirely backwards!

Lauren doesn't
even try to defend herself on this at all. She calls names. You don't
think
that is "fishy"?

You "boys" have been doing a lot more name calling than she has--so by your
reasoning, that ought to make your arguments even fishier, huh?

See, now I KNOW you're not impartial. Lauren and Phil have been back and forth
on the name calling. If you want to lump me in there, you need to go back and
count up the examples and then compare them w/ each other!

Let's see if I've got this straight: Lauren (by her own admission hates Hill's
and has NOTHING good to say about them at all) makes many contradictory
statements over the years and when she gets called on the carpet for it by
Phil, or myself, or anyone else for that matter....the "impartial" ones can't
find any reason to suspect any wrongdoing on her part and instead want to
apologize for her behavior and words. Is that about right?

From: (GAUBSTER2)

First of all you aren't addressing the fact that she has admitted an
anti-Hills
agenda and doesn't even try to appear fair. What's up w/ that?

I've explained several times that I fed my previous cats Science Die tnot my
current cats. I was forced to dig out my deceased cats medical records because
you couldn't accept the fact that my cats did poorly on Science Diet food.
This was something I did not relish doing, as it brought up painful memories.
But still I went through one of the cat's records and I even quoted the vet's
notes.

You know, you really come off as someone totally unhinged and out of touch with
reality. You take such offense when someone posts that their previous cats did
poorly on Science Diet. I don't understand why you would take something like
that so seriously to heart. You come off as someone with the agenda here, not
me. You seem to have a very serious problem, unless off course you, or perhaps
a member of your family works for Hill's. I have never seen a typical pet
owner defend a pet food with the veracity that you have. It's really bizarre,
to say the least. You did the exact same thing in the dog groups. One has to
really wonder about you. I have never seen you post in any other threads or
have one original thought. Have you considered psycbotherapy?

Lauren
________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm

From: (GAUBSTER2)

First of all you aren't addressing the fact that she has admitted an
anti-Hills
agenda and doesn't even try to appear fair. What's up w/ that?

I've explained several times that I fed my previous cats Science Die tnot my
current cats. I was forced to dig out my deceased cats medical records because
you couldn't accept the fact that my cats did poorly on Science Diet food.
This was something I did not relish doing, as it brought up painful memories.
But still I went through one of the cat's records and I even quoted the vet's
notes.

You know, you really come off as someone totally unhinged and out of touch with
reality. You take such offense when someone posts that their previous cats did
poorly on Science Diet. I don't understand why you would take something like
that so seriously to heart. You come off as someone with the agenda here, not
me. You seem to have a very serious problem, unless off course you, or perhaps
a member of your family works for Hill's. I have never seen a typical pet
owner defend a pet food with the veracity that you have. It's really bizarre,
to say the least. You did the exact same thing in the dog groups. One has to
really wonder about you. I have never seen you post in any other threads or
have one original thought. Have you considered psycbotherapy?

Lauren
________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm

From: "Cathy Friedmann"


"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
It's somewhat telling that the females can't
or won't see it and the males point out the inconsistencies

Whoa - two for two in one post. Another hint: Quit while you're behind.

Cathy

LOL, and he IS behind. Seems he has nothing useful to say so he resorts to
putting women down. Small mind, small words, small.....

Lauren
________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm

From: "Cathy Friedmann"


"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
It's somewhat telling that the females can't
or won't see it and the males point out the inconsistencies

Whoa - two for two in one post. Another hint: Quit while you're behind.

Cathy

LOL, and he IS behind. Seems he has nothing useful to say so he resorts to
putting women down. Small mind, small words, small.....

Lauren
________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm

"Phil P." wrote in message
...

"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
From: "Cathy Friedmann"

I missed that one by over 3 years. I'm not sure what you mean by
that.

Long story... nefarious/"iffy" method by which Phil introduced himself
to
this ng.

Bullsh!t! I was already here for a few months.....

Funny how I have no recollection of you, at all, before the PR posts.
Perhaps by "already here", you mean reading, not posting??

He supposedly just happened to meet a Vietnam buddy, "Phoenix
Rising" here one day - they showed up at the same time - & they
jabbbered
on
& on in a long thread about their old times in Vietnam. People asked
them
to take it to PEM & they said, "No". PR eventually left (never to
return) &
Phil stayed. It was just plain weird.

Thanks for the update.

I don't know how many times I posted that PR finally admitted the meeting
was arraigned by a mutual friend.... It boggles the mind that Cathy
remembers everything else but that...

I do remember that; however, you only admitted to it, much much later, when
people nailed you on the whole PR thing. It was all "innocent" when the PR
thread/posts were actually going on. (And whether or not PR was actually
another real person is still open to debate... after that little stunt, it's
difficult to take what you say with anything less than a grain of salt.)

If this is of such great
significance to her... she must lead a very dismal life...

Did you notice how upset Cathy gets when someone agrees with me or even
worse, defends me? ROTFL! She's definitely obsessed with showing the
world I'm such a "bad boy"... I think there's a bit of pathology
involved
with her obsession... ROTFL!

Hey, getting back to old form - some ROTFLs, instead of miserly little LOLs.

Could you imagine going on a date with her! Instead of a goodnight kiss,
she'd give you a report card on your behavior! LOL!

Well, you'll certainly never have the chance to find out, that's for sure.
:-Þ

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"Phil P." wrote in message
...

"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
From: "Cathy Friedmann"

I missed that one by over 3 years. I'm not sure what you mean by
that.

Long story... nefarious/"iffy" method by which Phil introduced himself
to
this ng.

Bullsh!t! I was already here for a few months.....

Funny how I have no recollection of you, at all, before the PR posts.
Perhaps by "already here", you mean reading, not posting??

He supposedly just happened to meet a Vietnam buddy, "Phoenix
Rising" here one day - they showed up at the same time - & they
jabbbered
on
& on in a long thread about their old times in Vietnam. People asked
them
to take it to PEM & they said, "No". PR eventually left (never to
return) &
Phil stayed. It was just plain weird.

Thanks for the update.

I don't know how many times I posted that PR finally admitted the meeting
was arraigned by a mutual friend.... It boggles the mind that Cathy
remembers everything else but that...

I do remember that; however, you only admitted to it, much much later, when
people nailed you on the whole PR thing. It was all "innocent" when the PR
thread/posts were actually going on. (And whether or not PR was actually
another real person is still open to debate... after that little stunt, it's
difficult to take what you say with anything less than a grain of salt.)

If this is of such great
significance to her... she must lead a very dismal life...

Did you notice how upset Cathy gets when someone agrees with me or even
worse, defends me? ROTFL! She's definitely obsessed with showing the
world I'm such a "bad boy"... I think there's a bit of pathology
involved
with her obsession... ROTFL!

Hey, getting back to old form - some ROTFLs, instead of miserly little LOLs.

Could you imagine going on a date with her! Instead of a goodnight kiss,
she'd give you a report card on your behavior! LOL!

Well, you'll certainly never have the chance to find out, that's for sure.
:-Þ

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
"Phil P." wrote:

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:


I have read Lauren's posts on this and other boards for a long time. I
don't
see any reason to suspect her of constantly lying or making things up.

Nothing gets past your lightening quick perception, does it!

For example:

From: "PawsForThought"
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:33 AM
Subject: "Science Diet" Hairball Control Sensitivity

"However, one of my cats anal glands became very badly impacted and
infected
from eating Science Diet"

From: Darnit7 )
Subject: Cat food and anal gland
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Date: 2001-01-05 18:50:10 PST

"But I don't see how wet food would cause your kitty's [anal
gland]problems.
Seems like this vet wants to push Science Diet."

She couldn't see how wet food would cause anal sac problems in the OP's
cat.... but she had no doubt that SD "caused" anal sac disease in her
cat....

So you assume the SD that "caused" anal sac problems in her cat was wet
and not
dry? If that's the case, okay, I see your point. But if you don't know
whether
she meant wet or dry SD, how can you insist it's a lie?

....because she's been vehemently against dry food since day one.... If you
were following her posts about foods as close as you say you were, there
would be no doubt in your mind either.... You're hardly impartial...



...and you can't see any reason to think she's a liar and conjures up
bullsh!t stories....??? I think you should see an ophthalmologist...
quick
if not sooner! LOL!

If she was feeding her cat SD kibble, there's no actual contradiction, is
there?

You're absolutely not "impartial" as you say you are or you're simply
obtuse...


Do you know for a fact she meant SD canned?

Based on her posting history, absolutely *yes* -- although she can and
probably will say no because it suits her agenda... like she usually does...


Perhaps you can dig up a
post to clarify.

Her posting history from day one more than clarifies it...