Allergies, Linear Granuloma, and Diet

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

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
olitter (PawsForThought) wrote:

From: "Phil P."

After
all, you did said you *never* fed SD.... unless you were lying
then...
or
you're lying now... Either way you lied -- you can't slither outta
that...

From: Darnit7 )
Subject: REPOST: A better cat food than Science Diet?
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Date: 2001-07-03 10:15:33 PST

"I never fed SD"

Once again, I have never fed SD to my cats. That would be my present
cats.
If
you notice the date on the post you got from Google, at that time, my
previous
cats were deceased. I was speaking of my present cats, whom I've
never
fed
SD
to, since my previous cats did so poorly on it.

That is how I always interpreted it. That when you said you never fed
SD,
you
meant you never fed it to your current cats.

No no no.... Read carefully:

From: Darnit7 )
Subject: REPOST: A better cat food than Science Diet?
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Date: 2001-07-03 10:15:33 PST

"I never fed SD, but have friends who did. Some of their cats developed
bad
allergies from that food. With all the preservatives and chemicals it
has,
I'm not surprised."

That does not remotely imply she was referring to her present cats.
"Never"
in this context means *never*... If was referring to her present cats,
she
would not have said "but have friends who did"... she would have used her
previous cats as a reference instead of her friends' cats.

You're far from being "impartial".

No, I'm not, because in the case you cite above, I'll grant you that the
statement can be taken as you read it.

Its the *only* logical way it can be taken ....


Later she explained

Okey dokey....

Too bad this isn't a binary group - I'd draw you a picture.....

From: "Cathy Friedmann"

If you girls don't see this

Girls? *Girls*?!? I'm 53 years old; it's been a long, l-o-n-g time since I
was a girl. Hint: if you're speaking to a woman or to some women, I
wouldn't refer to her/them as "girls"; many of us - incl. me - don't take to
it all that kindly.

But you ARE a girl. You're not a boy. Good grief, you're getting upset over
this? Don't get your knickers in a knot! Oh wait, perhaps you don't refer to
"them" as knickers so you should probably get upset over that too!

If I said, "If you women don't see this..." you wouldn't have given it a second
thought?

From: "Cathy Friedmann"

If you girls don't see this

Girls? *Girls*?!? I'm 53 years old; it's been a long, l-o-n-g time since I
was a girl. Hint: if you're speaking to a woman or to some women, I
wouldn't refer to her/them as "girls"; many of us - incl. me - don't take to
it all that kindly.

But you ARE a girl. You're not a boy. Good grief, you're getting upset over
this? Don't get your knickers in a knot! Oh wait, perhaps you don't refer to
"them" as knickers so you should probably get upset over that too!

If I said, "If you women don't see this..." you wouldn't have given it a second
thought?

From: "Cathy Friedmann"

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.


Prove me wrong then. The posts by various people on this ng seem to bear me
out.

From: "Cathy Friedmann"

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.


Prove me wrong then. The posts by various people on this ng seem to bear me
out.

From: olitter (PawsForThought)

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.....


LOL!! Gee, Lauren, the names you've been calling Steve Crane, Phil P and
myself don't seem to register w/ you? You've called me and Phil an "asshole"
on numerous occasions and you just used the Fword to Steve. As for being
small.....you're wrong on that one too!

From: olitter (PawsForThought)

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.....


LOL!! Gee, Lauren, the names you've been calling Steve Crane, Phil P and
myself don't seem to register w/ you? You've called me and Phil an "asshole"
on numerous occasions and you just used the Fword to Steve. As for being
small.....you're wrong on that one too!

From: ospam (Yngver)

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

Yes, acting like a pig does nothing to advance his arguments.


And I suppose you are still "impartial"?

From: ospam (Yngver)

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

Yes, acting like a pig does nothing to advance his arguments.


And I suppose you are still "impartial"?

From: ospam (Yngver)

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?


Okay, so you can't find it either. So we'll have to discard that point of
your
argument, since it can't be supported.


Nope, I didn't look. I know what I said and it's an exercise in futility to go
back and find what I said when I already know what I said. If you don't
believe me, then YOU go back and see what Lauren said and how I replied.
You're playing games here and it shows whose side you're on.

So what are you saying? You aren't calling her a liar, you say, but you do
say
she "wants to mislead." What's the diff? Not backtracking here, are you?


I'm not backtracking. You claim to be impartial, but it's OBVIOUS that you are
not. I read Lauren's own posts and see how she obsfucates and dances around
her own contradicting posts. She's the one doing it and nobody else! It does
seem to be that she is being misleading at best and a liar at worst. She's
probably somewhere in between.

and she has admitted that she hates Hill's and is on an
anti-Hill's agenda.

Where did she say "Gaubster, I am on an anti-Hill's agenda."? Hmm? C'mon.

In a couple of different posts when I've directly asked her.

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!

LOL. Precisely what am I risking? Twice I've explained what I meant by
impartiality. I'm not wasting my time doing it again.


Gee, I must have missed those posts. Why don't you go back and find what you
said?

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

Do you have any idea how stupid that statement makes you sound?

Do you realize how stupid all of this is? Lauren is clearly contradicting
herself and you defend her when she is called on it. Then, you claim that you
don't see the contradictions and think she is being "picked on"!

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.

Such as?

Anal Sac disease? She had never mentioned that before until somebody ELSE
brought it up in a post and then she claimed that Science Diet had something to
do w/ that in her own cat.