A cat forum. CatBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat health & behaviour
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Liz's Food recommendations



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 7th 03, 08:24 PM
Phil P.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Liz" wrote in message
om...


That´s how much
Hill´s knows biochemistry: nothing at all. .


LOL! Your delusions of grandeur are showing again! Of course a backwoods au
naturel fanatic like you with no veterinary training whatsoever knows more
about feline nutrition than board-certified Diplomates of the American
College of Veterinary Nutrition and Diplomates of the American College of
Veterinary Internal Medicine! ROTFL!

....and you wonder why vets who read your asinine theories and probably most
people other than other deluded au naturel fanatics) think you're a "nut
case"! LOL!



  #12  
Old October 7th 03, 09:42 PM
Joe Canuck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Liz wrote:
Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by
product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less
ground up bone tissue ? good point.



Excellent point. Lets all free feed our cats Science Diet for two
weeks and Wellness or Felidae for two weeks and weigh their stools
daily. Both Wellness and Felidae produce much less stools than Science
Diet. That´s how digestible they are. And this is something anyone
here can try at home and see for themselves.


What a task! do we pick off the litter that clings to the stool or just
include it in the weight totals? ;-)

Ok, I've been feeding my cat California Natural... food that claims to
be all natural and has chicken as the first and second ingredients. By
golly this stuff sounds good enough for me to eat. My cat eats it...
never been particulary crazy about it but she doesn't turn it down either.

Then I started feeding her a 75% California Natural & 25% Science Diet
Nature's Best. Everything changed around mealtime... she now meows for
me to fill up the dish. She now seems to try to ferret out the Science
Diet chunks from the California Natural. If I have no treats on hand,
she will happily consider the pure Science Diet Nature's Best chunks as
a treat.

The Science Diet Nature's Best has better calcium/phosphorus levels as
compared to California Natural.

If this Science Diet makes my cat happy around mealtime and is a
reasonable food as it does appear to be... I see no reason not to feed
it. Not only that but this food is available everywhere... and I mean
everywhere. I live in northern Canada and my choices are very limited...
but Science Diet is the best of those choices... without having to
resort to mail ordering food.

Are the stools increased in volume... don't know yet. She will have to
be on 100% Science Diet before I can tell for sure.

--
"Its the bugs that keep it running."
-Joe Canuck

  #13  
Old October 7th 03, 09:42 PM
Joe Canuck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Liz wrote:
Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by
product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less
ground up bone tissue ? good point.



Excellent point. Lets all free feed our cats Science Diet for two
weeks and Wellness or Felidae for two weeks and weigh their stools
daily. Both Wellness and Felidae produce much less stools than Science
Diet. That´s how digestible they are. And this is something anyone
here can try at home and see for themselves.


What a task! do we pick off the litter that clings to the stool or just
include it in the weight totals? ;-)

Ok, I've been feeding my cat California Natural... food that claims to
be all natural and has chicken as the first and second ingredients. By
golly this stuff sounds good enough for me to eat. My cat eats it...
never been particulary crazy about it but she doesn't turn it down either.

Then I started feeding her a 75% California Natural & 25% Science Diet
Nature's Best. Everything changed around mealtime... she now meows for
me to fill up the dish. She now seems to try to ferret out the Science
Diet chunks from the California Natural. If I have no treats on hand,
she will happily consider the pure Science Diet Nature's Best chunks as
a treat.

The Science Diet Nature's Best has better calcium/phosphorus levels as
compared to California Natural.

If this Science Diet makes my cat happy around mealtime and is a
reasonable food as it does appear to be... I see no reason not to feed
it. Not only that but this food is available everywhere... and I mean
everywhere. I live in northern Canada and my choices are very limited...
but Science Diet is the best of those choices... without having to
resort to mail ordering food.

Are the stools increased in volume... don't know yet. She will have to
be on 100% Science Diet before I can tell for sure.

--
"Its the bugs that keep it running."
-Joe Canuck

  #14  
Old October 8th 03, 12:08 AM
PawsForThought
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: (Liz)

This philosophy of Hill´s (and some other companies)
treating consumers as morons infuriates me. It shows how much the
company respects their customer - nothing at all. They (customers) are
all a bunch of easily-manipulated imbeciles. So let´s go ahead and
launch the 15% carbs Atkin´s type diet even knowing it doesn´t work.
Who cares? We are making money and that´s all that matters.


Have you checked out Hill's newest "formula" called Advanced Protection?
Ingredients:
Brewers rice, chicken by-product meal, corn gluten meal, corn meal, animal fat
(preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), dried egg product, chicken
liver flavor, fish oil (preserved with mixed tocopherols and ascorbic acid),
DL-methionine, L-lysine, natural flavor, taurine, L-cysteine, L-carnitine,
preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid, minerals (potassium chloride,
calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, salt, ferrous sulfate, zinc oxide, copper
sulfate, manganous oxide, calcium iodate, sodium selenite), rosemary extract,
beta-carotene, vitamins (choline chloride, vitamin A supplement, vitamin E
supplement, vitamin D3 supplement, L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (a source of
Vitamin C), niacin, thiamine mononitrate, calcium pantothenate, riboflavin,
pyridoxine hydrochloride, folic acid, biotin, vitamin B12 supplement).

Again, it looks like another grain based diet, cooked to death, and then they
throw some vitamins in. I still haven't figured out exacftly what dried egg
product is, and once again, they add chicken liver "flavor" but no chicken
liver. Animal fat could be from any source, who knows? Ah wait, I just found
this website:
http://www.hillssciencediet.info/DEFINITION.htm

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
  #15  
Old October 8th 03, 12:08 AM
PawsForThought
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: (Liz)

This philosophy of Hill´s (and some other companies)
treating consumers as morons infuriates me. It shows how much the
company respects their customer - nothing at all. They (customers) are
all a bunch of easily-manipulated imbeciles. So let´s go ahead and
launch the 15% carbs Atkin´s type diet even knowing it doesn´t work.
Who cares? We are making money and that´s all that matters.


Have you checked out Hill's newest "formula" called Advanced Protection?
Ingredients:
Brewers rice, chicken by-product meal, corn gluten meal, corn meal, animal fat
(preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), dried egg product, chicken
liver flavor, fish oil (preserved with mixed tocopherols and ascorbic acid),
DL-methionine, L-lysine, natural flavor, taurine, L-cysteine, L-carnitine,
preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid, minerals (potassium chloride,
calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, salt, ferrous sulfate, zinc oxide, copper
sulfate, manganous oxide, calcium iodate, sodium selenite), rosemary extract,
beta-carotene, vitamins (choline chloride, vitamin A supplement, vitamin E
supplement, vitamin D3 supplement, L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (a source of
Vitamin C), niacin, thiamine mononitrate, calcium pantothenate, riboflavin,
pyridoxine hydrochloride, folic acid, biotin, vitamin B12 supplement).

Again, it looks like another grain based diet, cooked to death, and then they
throw some vitamins in. I still haven't figured out exacftly what dried egg
product is, and once again, they add chicken liver "flavor" but no chicken
liver. Animal fat could be from any source, who knows? Ah wait, I just found
this website:
http://www.hillssciencediet.info/DEFINITION.htm

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
  #16  
Old October 8th 03, 12:32 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alison Perera wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Crane) wrote:

If you want to compare products you ought to compare products within
the same category. Both Wellness and Felidae are "All Life Stage"
foods, which means they have passed AFFCO testing for growth and are
indeed "kitten" foods. Therefore the correct comparison would be to
compare one growth food to another.


Steve,

Chris and I went around and around on this topic recently. What
requirements are there for a product to pass the AAFCO (I assume that's
what you mean) feed trial for growth, other than having 8 kittens
consume the food for 10 weeks and show no significant nutritional
deficiency or stunting of growth? Theoretically speaking, if one were to
submit Science Diet Adult Maintenance to an AAFCO growth trial, would it
have any chance of passing?

-Alison in OH


Alison,
AAFCO has two methods of approving a food. For many years there was
only one method and that involved an actual feeding trial. A few years
ago AAFCO got weak (my personal opinion) and permitted a manufacturer
to show that one food was similar to something else they already run
through feeding trials and therefore it wasn't necessary to actually
run a feeding trial. (Similar formulas expected to provide similar
results philosophy) You can tell the difference because the legal
AAFCO statement either uses the word "feeding" in the language of the
statement or doesn't.
There are essentially two forms of actual feeding trials. One is
for growth and the other is for adult maintenance. There is no feeding
trial for "All Life Stages". It is presumed that if a food can
satisfactorily pass the more strenuous growth test than it will
provide sufficient nutrition for adult maintenance. Feeding trial are
not deigned ot look for long term effects of excessive levels of
anything. The growth trial requires that puppies in the trial be fed
the food and that blood tests be taken every week during the trial.
PCV, RBC, WBC, and typical serum chemistries must remain within normal
ranges during the entire trial period or the food fails. Puppies and
kittens are growing at an enormous rate during this time and need
vastly greater quantities of calcium, phosphorus, fat, protein etc
than an adult dog or cat which isn't growing at such a prodigious
rate. And no, it's not as simple as the *amount* of food needed. The
ratio of protein to total energy intake is vastly different when you
are doubling in size during the trial period.
In contrast the adult trial requires the same blood test each week
and must deliver the same consequences at the end of the trial, but
the animals involved are not doubling their weight during the trial
and thus need far fewer amounts of many nutrients.
Science Diet adult products are designed and developed for adult
animals, not puppies or kittens and thus would not be subjected to the
growth trial. It would be purely a guess on my part, but I would guess
some might pass and others might not. Science Diet puppy and kitten
products could be labelled for "All Life Stages", however Hill's feels
this may mislead a pet owner into feeding a growth product to an
adult. Hill's has a tradition and history of treating disease with the
Prescription Diet products. As a consequence the level so fnutrients
like calcium and phosphorus that are so critical in renal failrue and
other diseases get particular attention. As a consequence dietary
development is always looking at the disease we see and trying to
avoid them. 50 years ago we saw pets in veterinary clinics with
examples of deficiencies in the diets, today we see only the results
of excesses in the veterinary clinic. (Outside of the occasional
animals dumped on the road and suffering from mal nutrition)
  #17  
Old October 8th 03, 12:32 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alison Perera wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Crane) wrote:

If you want to compare products you ought to compare products within
the same category. Both Wellness and Felidae are "All Life Stage"
foods, which means they have passed AFFCO testing for growth and are
indeed "kitten" foods. Therefore the correct comparison would be to
compare one growth food to another.


Steve,

Chris and I went around and around on this topic recently. What
requirements are there for a product to pass the AAFCO (I assume that's
what you mean) feed trial for growth, other than having 8 kittens
consume the food for 10 weeks and show no significant nutritional
deficiency or stunting of growth? Theoretically speaking, if one were to
submit Science Diet Adult Maintenance to an AAFCO growth trial, would it
have any chance of passing?

-Alison in OH


Alison,
AAFCO has two methods of approving a food. For many years there was
only one method and that involved an actual feeding trial. A few years
ago AAFCO got weak (my personal opinion) and permitted a manufacturer
to show that one food was similar to something else they already run
through feeding trials and therefore it wasn't necessary to actually
run a feeding trial. (Similar formulas expected to provide similar
results philosophy) You can tell the difference because the legal
AAFCO statement either uses the word "feeding" in the language of the
statement or doesn't.
There are essentially two forms of actual feeding trials. One is
for growth and the other is for adult maintenance. There is no feeding
trial for "All Life Stages". It is presumed that if a food can
satisfactorily pass the more strenuous growth test than it will
provide sufficient nutrition for adult maintenance. Feeding trial are
not deigned ot look for long term effects of excessive levels of
anything. The growth trial requires that puppies in the trial be fed
the food and that blood tests be taken every week during the trial.
PCV, RBC, WBC, and typical serum chemistries must remain within normal
ranges during the entire trial period or the food fails. Puppies and
kittens are growing at an enormous rate during this time and need
vastly greater quantities of calcium, phosphorus, fat, protein etc
than an adult dog or cat which isn't growing at such a prodigious
rate. And no, it's not as simple as the *amount* of food needed. The
ratio of protein to total energy intake is vastly different when you
are doubling in size during the trial period.
In contrast the adult trial requires the same blood test each week
and must deliver the same consequences at the end of the trial, but
the animals involved are not doubling their weight during the trial
and thus need far fewer amounts of many nutrients.
Science Diet adult products are designed and developed for adult
animals, not puppies or kittens and thus would not be subjected to the
growth trial. It would be purely a guess on my part, but I would guess
some might pass and others might not. Science Diet puppy and kitten
products could be labelled for "All Life Stages", however Hill's feels
this may mislead a pet owner into feeding a growth product to an
adult. Hill's has a tradition and history of treating disease with the
Prescription Diet products. As a consequence the level so fnutrients
like calcium and phosphorus that are so critical in renal failrue and
other diseases get particular attention. As a consequence dietary
development is always looking at the disease we see and trying to
avoid them. 50 years ago we saw pets in veterinary clinics with
examples of deficiencies in the diets, today we see only the results
of excesses in the veterinary clinic. (Outside of the occasional
animals dumped on the road and suffering from mal nutrition)
  #18  
Old October 8th 03, 12:46 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Liz) wrote in message . com...
Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by
product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less
ground up bone tissue ? good point.


Excellent point. Lets all free feed our cats Science Diet for two
weeks and Wellness or Felidae for two weeks and weigh their stools
daily. Both Wellness and Felidae produce much less stools than Science
Diet. That´s how digestible they are. And this is something anyone
here can try at home and see for themselves.

Of course the comment about heat
destroying nutrients is silly scaremongering nonsense. Manufacturers
have known the degradation rate of every vitamin for forty years,
based upon time and temperature.


Nonsense is your argumentation. Can you please explain this recent
hype of adding linoleic and linolenic acids (omega 6 and 3) to pet
foods? Both are easily destroyed by heat and both are essential. If
manufacturers had known degradation temperature of every vitamin for
forty years, why is this omega thing such a recent hype?


I guess I will break these up a bit. Yes the word is nonsense. Who do
you think pioneered adding high levels of Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids to
diets? in *1962* - Hill's. But you're right that was only 41 years
ago, not 50. There isn't a diet out there with more N3,6's than
products made by Hill's. The only "hype" around fatty acids is that
some manufacturers decided it would work to fool consumers. They
realized consumers wouldn't know if the food had N3,6's before or not.
So let's launch a great madison avenue marketing plan and tell
everybody we've added N3,6's to the diet.

Food
manufacturers know very little. Look at Hill´s launching an Atkin´s
type diet for cats with *15%* carbohydrates in it. That´s how much
Hill´s knows biochemistry: nothing at all. I bet they don´t have the
slightest understanding of what the Atkins does to the body and why
carbs have to be so reduced. Your nutrition researchers should all go
back to college.


What you fail to recognize, primarily becauaue you have followed down
the path of totally UNPROVEN carbophobia is that once the state of
metabolic acidosis is reached, it doesn't mater what the level of
carbs are - not one bit. It doesn't matter for treating weight loss or
for diabetes.


It's a no brainer to add in
sufficient vitamin X to accommodate loss. Further all competent
manufacturers test the FINAL product to insure it has all the
nutrients it is supposed to have at the right levels AFTER the
manufacturing process.


Yes, they can do that for the *known* nutrients. How about the
nutrients we still do not know about? How do they test for those? Or
do you think we already know all there is to know about nutrition?
Biochemistry is only the most underdeveloped science of all sciences
simply because it is so complex.


That's always the fall back isn't it. Play Chicken little and claim
the sky *might* be falling. I would suggest that you need to look at a
number of possible nutrients that are ONLY available when cooked. Be
sure to tell me how you are planning for these unknown nutrients that
are ONLY available in cooked foods.

Oh goodness. Now this is wild bs. Please state one. And let me remind
you that cellulose or starch are *not* necessary at all in a cat´s
diet.


Can you spell lycopene? trypsin in native states? and of course the
dreaded and evil carbohydrates, despite the myths and unsubstantiated
hypothesis of the carbophobics.
  #19  
Old October 8th 03, 12:46 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Liz) wrote in message . com...
Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by
product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less
ground up bone tissue ? good point.


Excellent point. Lets all free feed our cats Science Diet for two
weeks and Wellness or Felidae for two weeks and weigh their stools
daily. Both Wellness and Felidae produce much less stools than Science
Diet. That´s how digestible they are. And this is something anyone
here can try at home and see for themselves.

Of course the comment about heat
destroying nutrients is silly scaremongering nonsense. Manufacturers
have known the degradation rate of every vitamin for forty years,
based upon time and temperature.


Nonsense is your argumentation. Can you please explain this recent
hype of adding linoleic and linolenic acids (omega 6 and 3) to pet
foods? Both are easily destroyed by heat and both are essential. If
manufacturers had known degradation temperature of every vitamin for
forty years, why is this omega thing such a recent hype?


I guess I will break these up a bit. Yes the word is nonsense. Who do
you think pioneered adding high levels of Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids to
diets? in *1962* - Hill's. But you're right that was only 41 years
ago, not 50. There isn't a diet out there with more N3,6's than
products made by Hill's. The only "hype" around fatty acids is that
some manufacturers decided it would work to fool consumers. They
realized consumers wouldn't know if the food had N3,6's before or not.
So let's launch a great madison avenue marketing plan and tell
everybody we've added N3,6's to the diet.

Food
manufacturers know very little. Look at Hill´s launching an Atkin´s
type diet for cats with *15%* carbohydrates in it. That´s how much
Hill´s knows biochemistry: nothing at all. I bet they don´t have the
slightest understanding of what the Atkins does to the body and why
carbs have to be so reduced. Your nutrition researchers should all go
back to college.


What you fail to recognize, primarily becauaue you have followed down
the path of totally UNPROVEN carbophobia is that once the state of
metabolic acidosis is reached, it doesn't mater what the level of
carbs are - not one bit. It doesn't matter for treating weight loss or
for diabetes.


It's a no brainer to add in
sufficient vitamin X to accommodate loss. Further all competent
manufacturers test the FINAL product to insure it has all the
nutrients it is supposed to have at the right levels AFTER the
manufacturing process.


Yes, they can do that for the *known* nutrients. How about the
nutrients we still do not know about? How do they test for those? Or
do you think we already know all there is to know about nutrition?
Biochemistry is only the most underdeveloped science of all sciences
simply because it is so complex.


That's always the fall back isn't it. Play Chicken little and claim
the sky *might* be falling. I would suggest that you need to look at a
number of possible nutrients that are ONLY available when cooked. Be
sure to tell me how you are planning for these unknown nutrients that
are ONLY available in cooked foods.

Oh goodness. Now this is wild bs. Please state one. And let me remind
you that cellulose or starch are *not* necessary at all in a cat´s
diet.


Can you spell lycopene? trypsin in native states? and of course the
dreaded and evil carbohydrates, despite the myths and unsubstantiated
hypothesis of the carbophobics.
  #20  
Old October 8th 03, 01:07 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Liz) wrote in message . com...
Part Two


Felidae Dry: 21% carbohydrates

First of all your calculations were in error on this one, according to
their web site they have: protein 32.0%, fat 20.0%, fiber 2.5%,
moisture 9.0%, ash 5.5% Total 69% 100-69 = 31% carbohydrates


How about the other ingredients you did not add up?

Omega-6 fatty acids - 3.5%
Digestive Enzymes - 1.5 %
Omega-3 fatty acids - 0.75%
Linoleic acid - 3,70%
Magnesium and taurine - ~0.3%


You don't add those up because they are a) part of the greater nurient
or b)inconsequential. Omega fatty acids, linoleic acid are counted in
the total fats. Magnesium is counted within the "ash". Digestive
enzymes are counted in the proteins.


Or are those things carbohydrates in your concept? I won´t bother
looking at the rest of your manipulated numbers.


No I suppose not since they proved you completely wrong and hey, who
wants to know that little bit of information AGAIN?



Now if you are going
to say something like "those things are included in proteins, fats and
ash," I say we write them and ask.


Go for it, you determind the method of measuring carbs, and I followed
your method, adding up the five primary nutrients in cats and the four
primary nutrients in dogs. Something I have been teaching vets and
staff members to do for over 20 years.


Why is it that you posted levels of calcium and phosphorus? Is it the
old scare tactics and innuendoes relating them to kidney damage? If
you have ONE study showing either of them to be toxic to kidneys
please post.


Give me a break, you had such studies posted here so many times it is
ridiculous. Nobody has EVER claimed on this NG that protein,
phosphorus, sodium or calcium CAUSE renal failure. But since renal
failure is the second most common REAL cause of death in cats, not
some fantasy fringe lunatic disease nobody has ever found kind of
death (from ethox for instance), it makes no sense to to have
excessive levels of anything in a diet. Excessive levels of nutrients
are the biggest cause of disease death in pets today. The treatment of
nearly every common disease in cats today starts with the reduction of
such excessive nutrients.

And don´t give me that old crap of the early stages of
kidney disease. Phosphorus is only harmful to kidneys if it is in
excess in *blood*, not in diet.


Absolutely WRONG!!!!!!!! Phos levels above 0.4% in cats and dogs with
early renal failure CAUSES early DEATH. No if's no ands, no buts.


Excess phosphorus in blood
(hyperphosphataemia) can be detected at any time, all it takes is a
blood panel.


Again WRONG - You cannot detect early renal failure with a "blood
panel". Not even close. I can't believe you are so damn stubborn about
defending your mistakes your carbophobia you would willingly put other
peoples animals at risk by making such a totally erroneous statement.


This philosophy of Hill´s (and some other companies)
treating consumers as morons infuriates me. It shows how much the
company respects their customer - nothing at all. They (customers) are
all a bunch of easily-manipulated imbeciles. So let´s go ahead and
launch the 15% carbs Atkin´s type diet even knowing it doesn´t work.
Who cares? We are making money and that´s all that matters.


Hello!! Earth to LIZ - Purina's dry DM product has the same level of
carbs. That's the diet that Greco preaches in favor of, that Debra
wrote her anti carb article in favor of. Of course the fact that it
has been proven to work and has now even passed the final studies on
diabetes, all of which will be in peer reviewed published journal
articles down the road won't bother you in the least will it. You'll
keep ranting and raving without foundation anyway.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Before commercial cat food..... Kitten M Cat health & behaviour 716 October 18th 03 02:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.