How do I know if he is reblocking?

wrote:
My goodness. It's been a long while since I have posted anything
dealing with Phil P. I must have made a BAAAAD impression
snip

Well, well, the infamous treeline! Nice to meet you. Apparently
you and I both...I suspect that you made the mistake of daring to
challenge the "one who knows". I didn't know that challenging
new information was taboo on this group, but apparently there is at
least one poster here who thinks so. Thank you, by the way, for the
reference, I will follow it up. It's nice to meet people who are not
so egotistical about giving up their sources along with their
knowledge.

So let me throw out something. Phosphorus, oops wrong thread. Anyway,
keep the phosphorus low, 0.70%. Science Diet has all their foods around
this. Purina has most of their foods, all of them, above this except
for a very, very few.

It's not clear to me if the phosphorus has anything to do with
crystals. Probably not. But might have something to do with making the
kidneys work more than they should have to.

Phosphorus does play an important role in the kidneys, but much more
connected to calcium balance than struvite crystals. That is not
insignificant since there is in fact a relatively recent change in the
statistics concerning urinary tract stones in cats. They used to be
predominantly struvite crystals which were soluble and relatively easy
to manage with fluid therapy, but on account of an epidemic of vets
who treated urinary tract disease, or tried to prevent it using
prescription dry food diets to acidify the urine, in an attempt to make
struvite crystals even more soluble, there has been a backlash of
cases of stones made from a much more difficult culprit...calcium
oxalate, which tends to precipitate out when the urine is more acidic.
It is not very soluble at all, and in cats can much more often
necessitate surgical removal. In humans, these stones are the ones
that generally don't pass too easily, especially when big, and end up
needing lithotrypsy...or ultrasound therapy to "shatter" the stone into
small shards which can then be passed into a sieve (perhaps you
know someone who has been through this...it is considered one of the
most painful experiences of humans, second only to childbirth).
Anyways, because of those "urinary tract disease" dry diets,
the number of cases of calcium oxalate stones has increased quite
alot, and has been assessed as high as 40% or more in some studies,
and so it should be kept in mind for those whose cats have been on
one of these diets. The presence of calcium oxalate in the urine is
highly dependent upon calcium balance which is inextricably
intertwined with the phosphorus/parathyroid hormone/magnesium/vitD
axis, so the answer to your question is, yes, it is important to pay
attention to phosphorus balance. If phosphorus intake is too high,
calcium gets wasted, sometimes even from the bones, in order to
excrete it through the kidneys, and more calcium ends up in the
urine. Sorry if that was more information than you wanted to know!

Okay, back to the grind. Phil's okay. He's done a lot of reading.
Bought a lot of textbooks. And it's great to have a well-read sounding
board with lots of experience with strays and rescues I believe, even
if he has the temperament of an angry diva

Hmm, angry diva, or big fish in a small pond? I could see from the
start that he is knowledgeable, or I would not have wasted any time
on him. But I have little patience for people who let their knowledge
go to their head to the point where they become arrogant. I have not
bothered to post my own qualifications to speak about mammalian
physiology, because no one asked, although I have been accused of
starting a "****ing contest". There are those reading here who
do know, however. And they probably also know, or are starting to
figure out, that one axiom I like to follow in my own life is that
those who have knowledge carry a responsibility to use it wisely,
humbly and helpfully, not to use it to support their opinion of
themselves, or to make other people feel lesser. I have heard
the claim "I am only trying to help people" more times than I care to
relate by people who really only like to feel important, impress others
with their knowledge, and put folks down who come for help but
go away feeling a bit stupid for not knowing some salient piece of
information. Whatever knowledge I have to impart comes free of
any price (including emotional), and no one has to suck up to me
to get it, either.

Once again, treeline, thanks for stepping in to say a word.

--tension

Phil P. wrote:
"tension_on_the_wire" wrote in message
ups.com...

Not such an outrageous question, I thought!

It wasn't the question- it was the way you asked it.

Here is how I asked it:
Second of all, I am very curious to know what it is about
a cat's physiology that would protect him from
hypertension and renal disease from too much salt
intake?

Now I am quite curious to know what was so rude about that? Especially
considering the fact that it was a direct response to your post
inquiring whether I had any more questions! And yes, I do know what
a rhetorical question is, and I know the difference between that and
arrogant sarcasm. Fortunately, I had the courtesy to ignore your
sarcasm and keep mine to myself. You did me no such favor.

It was some time later that you finally gave me the references that
would answer my question. Thank you. Finally. Would have saved
us all a lot of pain if you had posted those right away instead of the
exceedingly rude response that you gave me. As a matter of fact,
I can't find even one post in which you have not been extremely
discourteous towards me and why? Because I had the temerity
to question your judgment? It was not such an unreasonable
question, after all. And showing surprise at your post about salt
was not particularly rude, either, I might add, unless you are a person
who is quick to take offense whenever your knowledge is questioned.
Surely when you posted information on a newsgroup, you came
prepared to be challenged by the occasional knowledgeable person
coming through who finds himself skeptical of your response. And
surely you are not really so egotistic as to think that the first thing
he is going to do is rifle through all your other posts just in case
this thread happens to be a carryover from another thread!! And
most surely of all, if others here have a high opinion of you, as
some seem to do, you would not be so insecure as to truly
believe that I am here to start a "****ing contest"? I know for
sure, that I am not that insecure, because if I were, I would have
deluged you with my qualifications at the getgo. When a person
takes the risk of offering medical advice of any type on a
newsgroup, even if it is "only" for cats, anyone, including
"Einstein" (which is *not* my name, and I would appreciate
it if you would make a note of that fact) is entitled to ask how
you are qualified to give that advice. And you should be
prepared to answer that question promptly or you are
acting irresponsibly. I know whereof I speak. Either way,
even if those *are* your unreasonable expectations, you could surely
have handled the situation with a bit more dignity and courtesy than to
treat me like a troll.

--tension

"tension_on_the_wire" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil P. wrote:
"tension_on_the_wire" wrote in message
ups.com...

Not such an outrageous question, I thought!

It wasn't the question- it was the way you asked it.

Here is how I asked it:
Second of all, I am very curious to know what it is about
a cat's physiology that would protect him from
hypertension and renal disease from too much salt
intake?

No no no- Don't try to convolute the issue. Your first post was:

"What?! Are you actually suggesting that he add salt
to the cat's diet just to be happy about the size of his
pees?"

That's what I didn't like. So, don't try to come off as a poor little
innocent victim who got hammered for asking a question.

tension_on_the_wire wrote:

And of course, for evidence that
this treatment would not result in hypertension in the cat
as it most certainly does in humans who consume too
much salt.

Consuming too much salt can *result* in hypertension? I thought it
was simply that if someone has hypertension due to too much water
retention, it is recommended that they reduce their salt intake
so they will retain less water. In other words, lowering salt can
be a treatment of high blood pressure, but high salt intake doesn't
*cause* it. At least, that's what I always thought...

Joyce - salt freak

tension_on_the_wire wrote:

one axiom I like to follow in my own life is that
those who have knowledge carry a responsibility to use it wisely,
humbly and helpfully, not to use it to support their opinion of
themselves, or to make other people feel lesser. I have heard
the claim "I am only trying to help people" more times than I care to
relate by people who really only like to feel important, impress others
with their knowledge, and put folks down who come for help but
go away feeling a bit stupid for not knowing some salient piece of
information. Whatever knowledge I have to impart comes free of
any price (including emotional), and no one has to suck up to me
to get it, either.

Marry me!

Just kidding. This is a dearly held belief of mine, too, but after
25+ years of working with self-important software engineering types
whose favorite response to any question is "RTFM", it's refreshing to
hear an educated, knowledgeable person say something different!

Joyce

Cheryl Perkins wrote:
wrote:

Consuming too much salt can *result* in hypertension? I thought it
was simply that if someone has hypertension due to too much water
retention, it is recommended that they reduce their salt intake
so they will retain less water. In other words, lowering salt can
be a treatment of high blood pressure, but high salt intake doesn't
*cause* it. At least, that's what I always thought...

From a vague memory of something I read - it depends on the person. Some
people's blood pressure isn't particular affected by salt intake, and
others is. People in both groups can have high blood pressure, but those
in group 1 won't benefit much from a low-salt diet, and those in group
2 will.

It seems that with at least two very common problems I've been reading up
on as a layperson - high blood pressure and high cholesterol - newer
research is revealing a much more complicated picture than that given by
the older advice of 'eat no salt and no fat'. Genetics affects not only
whether you are likely to have one of these problems, but what form it
takes - how serious it might be, how much it will be affected by diet,
etc.

It's all terribly confusing, especially the cholesterol part. Fortunately,
so far, my blood pressure seems immune to salt levels, although it can go
up and stay up in response to extreme and prolonged stress.

--
Cheryl

I am pretty grateful that the cardiologists take the same POV. They
tell me since salt doesn't seem to affect my blood pressure, that table
salt "in moderation" is fine. Which is a good thing,because if you take
all the fat AND salt out of your diet, you end up with pretty bland
stuff. (I don't care for a lot of other spices to use as a sub for
salt)
The two things that do seem to affect it are stress and pain.

Sherry

wrote in message
...
tension_on_the_wire wrote:

one axiom I like to follow in my own life is that
those who have knowledge carry a responsibility to use it wisely,
humbly and helpfully, not to use it to support their opinion of
themselves, or to make other people feel lesser. I have heard
the claim "I am only trying to help people" more times than I care to
relate by people who really only like to feel important, impress others
with their knowledge, and put folks down who come for help but
go away feeling a bit stupid for not knowing some salient piece of
information. Whatever knowledge I have to impart comes free of
any price (including emotional), and no one has to suck up to me
to get it, either.

Marry me!

Just kidding. This is a dearly held belief of mine, too, but after
25+ years of working with self-important software engineering types
whose favorite response to any question is "RTFM", it's refreshing to
hear an educated, knowledgeable person say something different!

I always got the impression that tension was a woman, but regardless, I
think I love him/her after this exchange! Wonderful.
I keep out of the health & behaviour group myself. Too much flaming and
downright unnecessary rudeness for me, tried it once and didn't like it ;-)

Tweed

Phil P. wrote:
No no no- Don't try to convolute the issue. Your first post was:

"What?! Are you actually suggesting that he add salt
to the cat's diet just to be happy about the size of his
pees?"

That's what I didn't like. So, don't try to come off as a poor little
innocent victim who got hammered for asking a question.

First of all, considering the context of the post, there was nothing
at all inappropriate about me expressing surprise at your suggestion
since you did not bother to couch it in any terms which explained its
mechanism to the poster and that is highly inappropriate when one
presumes to give medical advice of any type.

Precisely what, may I ask, is so rude about my expressing surprise
and skepticism at your somewhat unusual suggestion? You set
yourself up for it in the categorical manner in which you gave the
advice in the first place. Please, point out where, in that, or in any
other post, did I use insulting, derogatory, abusive or sarcastic
language towards you.

If the only example you can come up with is the one you just quoted
above, then I'm afraid your argument is pretty lame. You didn't "like"
it when I presumed to express skepticism? Or was my tone just not
humble enough to stroke your magnificent ego?

Even if I had posted in an openly rude or abusive manner, as you
have done to me on several occasions now, you still had no call
to continue or maintain such a negative tone in such an ongoing
manner as you still continue to do. Even now, you are writing
to me as if you are in a position to dictate to me the gospel according
to Dr. Phil, and as if I have no right to question your knowledge.
By your logic, I should be ranting at the top of my voice by now on
account of the appalling attitude you continue to express toward me.
I am not. I have restrained myself despite your abusive posts.
You would do well to do the same.

The fact that you have, of your own free will, pointed out that post
of mine as something to be offended at reveals a great deal about you
and your ego. Most people, when challenged in that manner would not
have responded in such a rude and discourteous way as you did.
Your answer was sarcastic, demeaning, unnecessary and clearly intended
to intimidate me with your knowledge and jargon, even though
the content of your answer was incomplete. Had you given a more
courteous answer, along with the references you finally, in the end,
came up with, it would have ended the discussion after one post.

You did not. You gave an answer which essentially implied that
I should not presume to question you, and that you know more
about this issue than I could ever have learned. Quite a presumption
on your part, in fact, as it turns out. And when I chose to politely
ignore your sarcasm, and take your statement at your word, and
ask the questions that you falsely invited, your posts became even
more abusive and insulting. Needlessly so, I might point out,
since I am still restraining my temper regardless of your continuing
insistence in writing to me in such a condescending and patronising
manner. If anyone is trying to convolute the issue here, it is you.

Read your own posts again, carefully. Several times you have
mentioned how you "didn't like" the way I spoke to you and somehow
you seem to feel that it justifies rudeness and discourtesy.
It does not. It reveals you for what you are...someone who thinks
so highly of himself and his knowledge that he has the right to judge
and condemn any poster who has the audacity to question his statements.

You didn't "like" the way I posed my question? You would have been
happier if I had posted with supplication perhaps to your august sum
of knowledge....please sir, tell me more? Shall I sit at your feet,
Master? Get over yourself. There are others here with knowlege too,
and if they choose to question yours, it would behoove you to answer
their questions appropriately, and without all the attitude.

--tension

wrote:
tension_on_the_wire wrote:

one axiom I like to follow in my own life is that
those who have knowledge carry a responsibility to use it wisely,
humbly and helpfully, not to use it to support their opinion of
themselves, or to make other people feel lesser. I have heard
the claim "I am only trying to help people" more times than I care to
relate by people who really only like to feel important, impress others
with their knowledge, and put folks down who come for help but
go away feeling a bit stupid for not knowing some salient piece of
information. Whatever knowledge I have to impart comes free of
any price (including emotional), and no one has to suck up to me
to get it, either.

Marry me!

Just kidding. This is a dearly held belief of mine, too, but after
25+ years of working with self-important software engineering types
whose favorite response to any question is "RTFM", it's refreshing to
hear an educated, knowledgeable person say something different!

Thank you, Joyce.

--tension

"tension_on_the_wire" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil P. wrote:
No no no- Don't try to convolute the issue. Your first post was:

"What?! Are you actually suggesting that he add salt
to the cat's diet just to be happy about the size of his
pees?"

That's what I didn't like. So, don't try to come off as a poor little
innocent victim who got hammered for asking a question.

First of all,

Stop whining and get over it. You're acting like spoiled little brat who
got your feelings hurt. Get over it.