Allergies, Linear Granuloma, and Diet

olitter (PawsForThought) wrote:

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.....

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

(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

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?

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.

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

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?


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.

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.

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.

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

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?


When placed in context, the posts are not contradictory. That is just as plain
to me as you say the opposite is plain to you.

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.

Such as?

(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

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?

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.

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

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?


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.

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.

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.

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

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?


When placed in context, the posts are not contradictory. That is just as plain
to me as you say the opposite is plain to you.

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.

Such as?

(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

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)

No, you didn't get it straight. And in any case, even if she did say she
couldn't think of anything good to say about Hill's, why does that seem to
outrage you so? It's just an opinion. If I said I have nothing good to say
about R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company--and off the top of my head, I don't--would
you become furious about it? If not, why do you seem to identify so with a
particular pet food manufacturer that you can't stand to hear a word of
criticism about them?

makes many contradictory
statements

They are not contradictory when placed in proper context.

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?

No, there were several parts you mis-stated.

(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

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)

No, you didn't get it straight. And in any case, even if she did say she
couldn't think of anything good to say about Hill's, why does that seem to
outrage you so? It's just an opinion. If I said I have nothing good to say
about R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company--and off the top of my head, I don't--would
you become furious about it? If not, why do you seem to identify so with a
particular pet food manufacturer that you can't stand to hear a word of
criticism about them?

makes many contradictory
statements

They are not contradictory when placed in proper context.

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?

No, there were several parts you mis-stated.

"Phil P." wrote:

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....

I presume you mean, since day one that she has been posting on this ng,
correct? So by your logic, this means she could never possibly have fed dry
food in her entire life, right?

You made the same mistake in a thread with me once--you presumed I was talking
about feeding my cats canned food when I was actually feeding dry. I'm not a
fan of dry food either, so perhaps that's why you assumed I didn't feed it. But
I explained that I started feeding our cats dry food when we first adopted
them, before I knew better, and I've not been successful in transitioning them
completely to canned food. So they still eat some kibble.

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...

(snip)

Do you know for a fact she meant SD canned?

Based on her posting history, absolutely *yes* --

Well, if you were mistaken about your assumption that I was talking about
canned food in a particular thread, is it impossible you are mistaken about
Lauren in thinking she has never in her life fed a cat dry food?

although she can and
probably will say no because it suits her agenda... like she usually does...

And I figured you would say that, just as I suspected she was was referring to
kibble in that post.

Perhaps you can dig up a
post to clarify.

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

Really? You know, you could say I'm vehemently against Tender Vittles. I'm
sure I've never posted anything favorable about Tender Vittles. So it follows I
have never ever fed it, right? But when I adopted my previous cat, I was 19
years old. What did I know about cat food? Of course I fed her Tender Vittles.
She liked it. It was easy. But over the years I came to learn that it's about
the worst possible food you can feed.

When someone pulled some of your older posts condemning Science Diet, and
pointed out that those posts contradict your more recent pronouncements on that
food, you explained that you learned more about the topic and changed your
mind. To me, that seemed like a reasonable explanation for what initially may
have seemed contradictory. Yet when Lauren explains that she used to feed dry
food, but learned more about it and changed her mind, you can't accept that as
a reasonable explanation for what seemed contradictory?

"Phil P." wrote:

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....

I presume you mean, since day one that she has been posting on this ng,
correct? So by your logic, this means she could never possibly have fed dry
food in her entire life, right?

You made the same mistake in a thread with me once--you presumed I was talking
about feeding my cats canned food when I was actually feeding dry. I'm not a
fan of dry food either, so perhaps that's why you assumed I didn't feed it. But
I explained that I started feeding our cats dry food when we first adopted
them, before I knew better, and I've not been successful in transitioning them
completely to canned food. So they still eat some kibble.

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...

(snip)

Do you know for a fact she meant SD canned?

Based on her posting history, absolutely *yes* --

Well, if you were mistaken about your assumption that I was talking about
canned food in a particular thread, is it impossible you are mistaken about
Lauren in thinking she has never in her life fed a cat dry food?

although she can and
probably will say no because it suits her agenda... like she usually does...

And I figured you would say that, just as I suspected she was was referring to
kibble in that post.

Perhaps you can dig up a
post to clarify.

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

Really? You know, you could say I'm vehemently against Tender Vittles. I'm
sure I've never posted anything favorable about Tender Vittles. So it follows I
have never ever fed it, right? But when I adopted my previous cat, I was 19
years old. What did I know about cat food? Of course I fed her Tender Vittles.
She liked it. It was easy. But over the years I came to learn that it's about
the worst possible food you can feed.

When someone pulled some of your older posts condemning Science Diet, and
pointed out that those posts contradict your more recent pronouncements on that
food, you explained that you learned more about the topic and changed your
mind. To me, that seemed like a reasonable explanation for what initially may
have seemed contradictory. Yet when Lauren explains that she used to feed dry
food, but learned more about it and changed her mind, you can't accept that as
a reasonable explanation for what seemed contradictory?

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. Later she explained that she meant she
never fed SD to any cats not now deceased. I think most of us have had the
experience of occasionally writing an imprecise post--imprecise because the
details were not pertinent to the thread at the time, and only need to be more
fully explained when someone dredges it up later.

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. Later she explained that she meant she
never fed SD to any cats not now deceased. I think most of us have had the
experience of occasionally writing an imprecise post--imprecise because the
details were not pertinent to the thread at the time, and only need to be more
fully explained when someone dredges it up later.

"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.....