|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#221
November 3rd 03, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Okay, now you are a troll, pure and simple. You obviously aren't sincere.
I DO have proof, but I won't be providing you w/ it at all. Or anyone else for that matter. Oh, I forgot, now go tell me to look it up  ________ You're right (for once). I won't be providing you w/ anything else since I know you are simply trolling for reactions. 
|
|
#222
November 3rd 03, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay, now you are a troll, pure and simple. You obviously aren't sincere.
I DO have proof, but I won't be providing you w/ it at all. Or anyone else for that matter. Oh, I forgot, now go tell me to look it up ________ You're right (for once). I won't be providing you w/ anything else since I know you are simply trolling for reactions.
|
|
#223
November 3rd 03, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It just didn't work out for
any of my animals, or a lot of other people's aniimals as well. If it works for yours, then that's great. Yeah, right. I don't believe anything you say anymore. I know A LOT of people who's pets have done extremely well since switching over to Science Diet. I guess that cancels out your "me too" stories.
|
|
#224
November 3rd 03, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It just didn't work out for
any of my animals, or a lot of other people's aniimals as well. If it works for yours, then that's great. Yeah, right. I don't believe anything you say anymore. I know A LOT of people who's pets have done extremely well since switching over to Science Diet. I guess that cancels out your "me too" stories.
|
|
#225
November 3rd 03, 09:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
'Other's definitions': In the context of the thread, *I* was the
'other'. I provided no 'definition' of 'human grade'. I think your point was that some of the ingredients in SD are human grade. A strawman argument, this one, given that *every* food contains some human-grade ingredients. "others" as in: other people on this ng, not just you and/or other people in real life, not just on this ng. Very good, now you admit that "every" food contains some human-grade ingredients. Any particular food may claim "contains human grade ingredients" and they would be correct (in most cases). It took a while but not you get my point. So, let's nail the hammer home he are you saying that the byproduct meal used in Hills (or other, indeed) cat foods is suitable for human consumption? I suppose it would depend on the by-product being used. You didn't define exactly what by-product you were referring to. Don't people eat liver or heart? Some by-products are good and some are bad. Not all by-product is bad...another point I've been making for years. What, even though - as posted by Steve Crane - ALS, kitten and maintenance foods overlap in their required nutritional characteristics?? Absurd! Some do and some do not. It depends on the food. As a general rule, why would you feed a food that meets the (higher) nutrient demands of a kitten if you have a senior cat? Moreoever, even for foods which are relatively (e.g.) calorific, you have provided no data to show that such foods are dangerous for the furry ones. You are twisting the argument AGAIN. I never said dangerous. I did discuss risk factors. If you are at all concerned about risk factors, you would see what I'm talking about. What risk factors, exactly? Hypertension, kidney disease, FLUTD, etc. Any food that makes the "all life stage" claim has higher levels of nutrients more appropriate for growth foods. The higher levels of nutrients will satisify the minimums for other lifestages. What part of that is so hard to understand? Good lord! I'm not sure what more I can do to show your error to you, other than hopping over there, and personally tapping a morse-code message onto your skull, using a can of Wellness. You think I am categorically wrong on this one? You are really stretching and looking for grey areas to exploit. ALS foods may mean something different abroad, but please show me why a company would formulate a food that is higher in nutrients for kittens and then market it to adult and senior cats? ALS foods (as a general rule, you can probably find an exception or 2) are formulated w/ higher nutrients than adult foods are. You are trying to make it more complicated than that. It won't guarantee disaster, but why play around w/ the health of your pet? If you can post any cites that show any of the ALS foods (or at least any that I may feed) significantly increase the risk of ill health in cats, I would (will) change what I feed to il freaks furries, no question. You're asking for something that probably doesn't exist. I can play your game too, but I won't. Let's try this as an example. Are you (or anyone else) advocating feeding an adult or senior cat a food that has higher levels of phosphorus than neccessary? Kitten foods (as a general rule) have higher levels of phosphorus than adult or properly formulated senior foods. High levels of phosphorus are not desired in a sub-clinical CRF cat. Renal disease doesn't present itself until about 75% of the kidneys are irreparably damaged. By then it's too late. Feeding an ALS food (met the higher nutrient requirements for kittens) to a senior cat could put that cat at risk for further exacerbating the "hidden" kidney disease. No? Prediction: You cannot, will not, will never be able to provide such citations. That's the thing about risk factors. They are precautions that one takes, "just in case". There is no guarantee of a undesirable outcome, yet why not err on the side of caution? Been doing drugs lately? Sheesh! Having a conversation with you reminds me of that time when I tried to thread a whale through the eye of a needle while drinking soup with a fork. Once upon a time, a small pixie told me that feeding iguanas to my cats would be great. However, I'm not going to bother justifying this, even though it's a bizarre as a hatful of sentient cheese. I suspect that you are thinking of SC's list of vitamin toxicities / the effects of vitamin overdoses? All well and good, if any of the foods we feed contain vitamin levels which could lead to said toxicities. They do not? Ah - I see - another straw man, then. I love it when you people answer your own questions w/o bothering to hear from the person you ask the question of! I'm talking disease conditions that can be caused or exacerbated by ingesting excessive levels of protein, fat, salt, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, etc. Again, without evidence your statements are simply meaningless. If I said the earth was round, but didn't "back it up", does that mean I'm wrong? - You imply that Wellness foods contain ****. That's literal, not metaphoric **** (eg, http://makeashorterlink.com/?S16B53A66). I'm sorry you read something into it that I did not say. First of all your links aren't working. They are working for me! (You go to Makeashorterlink's home page first, and it then directs you onward. If you are impatient, you'll only get as far as the former!) They didn't work for me. I clicked on the links and got an error message from "makeashorterlink.com". Secondly, I never said they contained feces No, you didn't say this (AFAIK), but you most certainly implied it. Again, you can read into it whatever you want--I did not imply it. My point (AGAIN!!) is that the same people that freak out about the safe, effective use of synthetic antioxidants because they "sound bad" and may or may not have a MSDS associated with them (at toxic levels which aren't used in pet foods) seem to have no problem w/ a food that pushes all of the right emotional buttons (like Wellness). I simply pointed out facts, that were used by the emotional ones to have a fit! I think my point was made. --I said that the foods contained bacteria which are FOUND in feces. Big difference. And that whole point was to illustrate that the women on this board who cringe at the thought of feeding foods that are preserved safely w/ synthetic antioxidants have no problem feeding a food that has bacteria that is found in feces. Apparently you don't see the double standard? No. Well, now perhaps you will. Unless you don't want to admit it. - You're not too hot on the world outside the US, either No, quite frankly I'm not. (...) Well, that's fine - but it puts you on dodgy ground when you suggest Norway as a hotbed of steaming drug-addled fruitcakes. ?? The problem is that you are taking what I say out of context. The problem is that you are either i) wrong, but won't admit it, or ii) making statements that are strictly correct, but which are meant to have wider (but unreasonable) implications. You disagree w/ me so **I'M** wrong? Good for you!
|
|
#226
November 3rd 03, 09:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
'Other's definitions': In the context of the thread, *I* was the
'other'. I provided no 'definition' of 'human grade'. I think your point was that some of the ingredients in SD are human grade. A strawman argument, this one, given that *every* food contains some human-grade ingredients. "others" as in: other people on this ng, not just you and/or other people in real life, not just on this ng. Very good, now you admit that "every" food contains some human-grade ingredients. Any particular food may claim "contains human grade ingredients" and they would be correct (in most cases). It took a while but not you get my point. So, let's nail the hammer home he are you saying that the byproduct meal used in Hills (or other, indeed) cat foods is suitable for human consumption? I suppose it would depend on the by-product being used. You didn't define exactly what by-product you were referring to. Don't people eat liver or heart? Some by-products are good and some are bad. Not all by-product is bad...another point I've been making for years. What, even though - as posted by Steve Crane - ALS, kitten and maintenance foods overlap in their required nutritional characteristics?? Absurd! Some do and some do not. It depends on the food. As a general rule, why would you feed a food that meets the (higher) nutrient demands of a kitten if you have a senior cat? Moreoever, even for foods which are relatively (e.g.) calorific, you have provided no data to show that such foods are dangerous for the furry ones. You are twisting the argument AGAIN. I never said dangerous. I did discuss risk factors. If you are at all concerned about risk factors, you would see what I'm talking about. What risk factors, exactly? Hypertension, kidney disease, FLUTD, etc. Any food that makes the "all life stage" claim has higher levels of nutrients more appropriate for growth foods. The higher levels of nutrients will satisify the minimums for other lifestages. What part of that is so hard to understand? Good lord! I'm not sure what more I can do to show your error to you, other than hopping over there, and personally tapping a morse-code message onto your skull, using a can of Wellness. You think I am categorically wrong on this one? You are really stretching and looking for grey areas to exploit. ALS foods may mean something different abroad, but please show me why a company would formulate a food that is higher in nutrients for kittens and then market it to adult and senior cats? ALS foods (as a general rule, you can probably find an exception or 2) are formulated w/ higher nutrients than adult foods are. You are trying to make it more complicated than that. It won't guarantee disaster, but why play around w/ the health of your pet? If you can post any cites that show any of the ALS foods (or at least any that I may feed) significantly increase the risk of ill health in cats, I would (will) change what I feed to il freaks furries, no question. You're asking for something that probably doesn't exist. I can play your game too, but I won't. Let's try this as an example. Are you (or anyone else) advocating feeding an adult or senior cat a food that has higher levels of phosphorus than neccessary? Kitten foods (as a general rule) have higher levels of phosphorus than adult or properly formulated senior foods. High levels of phosphorus are not desired in a sub-clinical CRF cat. Renal disease doesn't present itself until about 75% of the kidneys are irreparably damaged. By then it's too late. Feeding an ALS food (met the higher nutrient requirements for kittens) to a senior cat could put that cat at risk for further exacerbating the "hidden" kidney disease. No? Prediction: You cannot, will not, will never be able to provide such citations. That's the thing about risk factors. They are precautions that one takes, "just in case". There is no guarantee of a undesirable outcome, yet why not err on the side of caution? Been doing drugs lately? Sheesh! Having a conversation with you reminds me of that time when I tried to thread a whale through the eye of a needle while drinking soup with a fork. Once upon a time, a small pixie told me that feeding iguanas to my cats would be great. However, I'm not going to bother justifying this, even though it's a bizarre as a hatful of sentient cheese. I suspect that you are thinking of SC's list of vitamin toxicities / the effects of vitamin overdoses? All well and good, if any of the foods we feed contain vitamin levels which could lead to said toxicities. They do not? Ah - I see - another straw man, then. I love it when you people answer your own questions w/o bothering to hear from the person you ask the question of! I'm talking disease conditions that can be caused or exacerbated by ingesting excessive levels of protein, fat, salt, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, etc. Again, without evidence your statements are simply meaningless. If I said the earth was round, but didn't "back it up", does that mean I'm wrong? - You imply that Wellness foods contain ****. That's literal, not metaphoric **** (eg, http://makeashorterlink.com/?S16B53A66). I'm sorry you read something into it that I did not say. First of all your links aren't working. They are working for me! (You go to Makeashorterlink's home page first, and it then directs you onward. If you are impatient, you'll only get as far as the former!) They didn't work for me. I clicked on the links and got an error message from "makeashorterlink.com". Secondly, I never said they contained feces No, you didn't say this (AFAIK), but you most certainly implied it. Again, you can read into it whatever you want--I did not imply it. My point (AGAIN!!) is that the same people that freak out about the safe, effective use of synthetic antioxidants because they "sound bad" and may or may not have a MSDS associated with them (at toxic levels which aren't used in pet foods) seem to have no problem w/ a food that pushes all of the right emotional buttons (like Wellness). I simply pointed out facts, that were used by the emotional ones to have a fit! I think my point was made. --I said that the foods contained bacteria which are FOUND in feces. Big difference. And that whole point was to illustrate that the women on this board who cringe at the thought of feeding foods that are preserved safely w/ synthetic antioxidants have no problem feeding a food that has bacteria that is found in feces. Apparently you don't see the double standard? No. Well, now perhaps you will. Unless you don't want to admit it. - You're not too hot on the world outside the US, either No, quite frankly I'm not. (...) Well, that's fine - but it puts you on dodgy ground when you suggest Norway as a hotbed of steaming drug-addled fruitcakes. ?? The problem is that you are taking what I say out of context. The problem is that you are either i) wrong, but won't admit it, or ii) making statements that are strictly correct, but which are meant to have wider (but unreasonable) implications. You disagree w/ me so **I'M** wrong? Good for you!
|
|
#228
November 3rd 03, 11:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (GAUBSTER2)
It just didn't work out for any of my animals, or a lot of other people's aniimals as well. If it works for yours, then that's great. Yeah, right. I don't believe anything you say anymore. I know A LOT of people who's pets have done extremely well since switching over to Science Diet. I guess that cancels out your "me too" stories. Me too? No, I told you my animals did NOT do well on Science Diet. ________ 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
|
|
#229
November 3rd 03, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#230
November 3rd 03, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| "Science Diet" Hairball Control Sensitivity | Alaininsd | Cat health & behaviour | 286 | October 26th 03 03:42 PM |
| Liz's Food recommendations | Steve Crane | Cat health & behaviour | 454 | October 20th 03 08:20 PM |
Linear Mode
