|
| 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 |
|
#781
December 1st 03, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#782
December 1st 03, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Phil P." wrote in message
news  "-L." wrote in message m... "Phil P." wrote in message ... "Liz" wrote in message om... Thanks Cathy and Lauren. After I learned he´s a war veteran, I understand why he is the way he is. That statement sure confirmed everything I've said about you. You've just offended millions of veterans... You've sure proven you truly are a sleazy, amoral low-life. I couldn't have done a better job myself! Hell, it offended me, and I'm nowhere close to being a veteran... Btw, don't be flattered and thank Cathy for agreeing with you - She'd agree with anyone who disagreed with me - right or wrong... Collective Bitches(tm) syndrome, perhaps?  More like self-righteous and sanctimonious... Cathy's the quintessential paradigm of a "goody two shoes"....If you look up either word you'll probably find a picture of her! LOL! She's had an obsession with trying to show the world what a "bad boy" I am for *years*. -- Look at her posts in this thread alone... you'll see what I mean... No real point to her posts... other than I'm a "bad boy"... LOL! She bends with whichever wind is blowing against me... right or wrong... and completely disregards the real issue... She doesn't like my manners.... I admit my manners are pretty bad... I don't like them myself... I grieve over them on long winter nights....and because she's a teacher she has this compulsive urge to "grade" my behavior! LOL! She reminds me of the Leprechaun in the movie who had an obsession with polishing every pair of dirty shoes that he saw! LOL! I kill-filled her years ago but I see by her replies in other peoples' posts that she's *still* obsessed ... Talk about obsessed! LOL! She's the only person you can kill-file without the slightest worry of missing anything imp ortant... She's here more for the personal debates than the cats... I'd bet dollars to donuts she crawled out from under her rock to comment only on the personal issues rather than anything to do with cats... Now watch her post a string of posts about cats! LOL! And you're not here for any personal debates? Then what was this post about?? And only 5 "LOL"s? You're slipping.. You're not only obnoxious, IMO, you're nuts. I was here, reading & posting about cats before you ever showed up, & am still here, still reading & posting about cats. When you decide to be obnoxious, you run the risk of having to deal w/ some resultant flak - whether from me or from whomever. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon
|
|
#783
December 1st 03, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Phil P." wrote in message
news "-L." wrote in message m... "Phil P." wrote in message ... "Liz" wrote in message om... Thanks Cathy and Lauren. After I learned he´s a war veteran, I understand why he is the way he is. That statement sure confirmed everything I've said about you. You've just offended millions of veterans... You've sure proven you truly are a sleazy, amoral low-life. I couldn't have done a better job myself! Hell, it offended me, and I'm nowhere close to being a veteran... Btw, don't be flattered and thank Cathy for agreeing with you - She'd agree with anyone who disagreed with me - right or wrong... Collective Bitches(tm) syndrome, perhaps? More like self-righteous and sanctimonious... Cathy's the quintessential paradigm of a "goody two shoes"....If you look up either word you'll probably find a picture of her! LOL! She's had an obsession with trying to show the world what a "bad boy" I am for *years*. -- Look at her posts in this thread alone... you'll see what I mean... No real point to her posts... other than I'm a "bad boy"... LOL! She bends with whichever wind is blowing against me... right or wrong... and completely disregards the real issue... She doesn't like my manners.... I admit my manners are pretty bad... I don't like them myself... I grieve over them on long winter nights....and because she's a teacher she has this compulsive urge to "grade" my behavior! LOL! She reminds me of the Leprechaun in the movie who had an obsession with polishing every pair of dirty shoes that he saw! LOL! I kill-filled her years ago but I see by her replies in other peoples' posts that she's *still* obsessed ... Talk about obsessed! LOL! She's the only person you can kill-file without the slightest worry of missing anything imp ortant... She's here more for the personal debates than the cats... I'd bet dollars to donuts she crawled out from under her rock to comment only on the personal issues rather than anything to do with cats... Now watch her post a string of posts about cats! LOL! And you're not here for any personal debates? Then what was this post about?? And only 5 "LOL"s? You're slipping.. You're not only obnoxious, IMO, you're nuts. I was here, reading & posting about cats before you ever showed up, & am still here, still reading & posting about cats. When you decide to be obnoxious, you run the risk of having to deal w/ some resultant flak - whether from me or from whomever. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon
|
|
#784
December 1st 03, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
... From: "Cathy Friedmann" More likely, Phil is from a day and age when lying was frowned upon and dealt with as he is doing now. Ha! Then perhaps you'd like to ask him to thoroughly explain the whole Phoenix Rising thread, which was Phil's (rather unique!) intro to this ng in '99. I missed that one by over 3 years. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Long story... nefarious/"iffy" method by which Phil introduced himself to this ng. He supposedly just happened to meet a Vietnam buddy, "Phoenix Rising" here one day - they showed up at the same time - & they jabbbered on & on in a long thread about their old times in Vietnam. People asked them to take it to PEM & they said, "No". PR eventually left (never to return) & Phil stayed. It was just plain weird. I personally think that we tolerate lying too much as a society and it shows here. People will defend bad behavior to their last breath by justifying it somehow or another. And some people will defend good ol' Phil's historically lousy Usenet behavior to the hilt (you've been here too relatively short a time to have witnessed some of his biggies); why, has always been beyond me. They seem to think that whatever he has in knowledge cats, excuses his venom. Who's excusing his behavior? Even Phil himself admits that he can be "harsh". It's not like he's a troll. No, he's not a troll; he's been here since '99. You've missed prior times when Phil has been incredibly obnoxious to various & sundry ("harsh" doesn't quite cover it at times; I don't think you've yet seen him when he's really in his stride), & yet others have said that it was okay - his crummy manners can be excused, because Phil has more knowledge about cats than most others. Since when does knowledge excuse rotten behavior? (And, therefore, I am "Goody Two Shoes" & at the same time, a bitch, in his book.) Yes, he admits he can have lousy manners; he seems to think that just saying that excuses his bouts of obnoxiousness. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon
|
|
#785
December 1st 03, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
... From: "Cathy Friedmann" More likely, Phil is from a day and age when lying was frowned upon and dealt with as he is doing now. Ha! Then perhaps you'd like to ask him to thoroughly explain the whole Phoenix Rising thread, which was Phil's (rather unique!) intro to this ng in '99. I missed that one by over 3 years. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Long story... nefarious/"iffy" method by which Phil introduced himself to this ng. He supposedly just happened to meet a Vietnam buddy, "Phoenix Rising" here one day - they showed up at the same time - & they jabbbered on & on in a long thread about their old times in Vietnam. People asked them to take it to PEM & they said, "No". PR eventually left (never to return) & Phil stayed. It was just plain weird. I personally think that we tolerate lying too much as a society and it shows here. People will defend bad behavior to their last breath by justifying it somehow or another. And some people will defend good ol' Phil's historically lousy Usenet behavior to the hilt (you've been here too relatively short a time to have witnessed some of his biggies); why, has always been beyond me. They seem to think that whatever he has in knowledge cats, excuses his venom. Who's excusing his behavior? Even Phil himself admits that he can be "harsh". It's not like he's a troll. No, he's not a troll; he's been here since '99. You've missed prior times when Phil has been incredibly obnoxious to various & sundry ("harsh" doesn't quite cover it at times; I don't think you've yet seen him when he's really in his stride), & yet others have said that it was okay - his crummy manners can be excused, because Phil has more knowledge about cats than most others. Since when does knowledge excuse rotten behavior? (And, therefore, I am "Goody Two Shoes" & at the same time, a bitch, in his book.) Yes, he admits he can have lousy manners; he seems to think that just saying that excuses his bouts of obnoxiousness. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon
|
|
#786
December 1st 03, 09:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message ... From: ospam (Yngver) 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. As I said elsewhere in this thread, if someone makes a brief response without explaining the full context in detail, that's not the same as deliberately lying. It's just something most people do for brevity's sake. With all due respect, you are really turning into an apologist for Lauren. Why? It seems clear that by all of the different times she has contradicted herself that she hasn't been entirely truthful. It surprise me that someone such as yourself (who claims to be impartial) doesn't see that. shrug I am also impartial in this whole issue. I don't see eye-to-eye on various issues w/ Lauren, yet we're not at eachothers' throats & get along okay. At any rate, I also don't see that what's she's written about feeding SD to her cats can automatically be construed as lies. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon
|
|
#787
December 1st 03, 09:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message ... From: ospam (Yngver) 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. As I said elsewhere in this thread, if someone makes a brief response without explaining the full context in detail, that's not the same as deliberately lying. It's just something most people do for brevity's sake. With all due respect, you are really turning into an apologist for Lauren. Why? It seems clear that by all of the different times she has contradicted herself that she hasn't been entirely truthful. It surprise me that someone such as yourself (who claims to be impartial) doesn't see that. shrug I am also impartial in this whole issue. I don't see eye-to-eye on various issues w/ Lauren, yet we're not at eachothers' throats & get along okay. At any rate, I also don't see that what's she's written about feeding SD to her cats can automatically be construed as lies. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon
|
|
#789
December 1st 03, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cathy Friedmann" wrote:
"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message ... From: ospam (Yngver) 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. As I said elsewhere in this thread, if someone makes a brief response without explaining the full context in detail, that's not the same as deliberately lying. It's just something most people do for brevity's sake. With all due respect, you are really turning into an apologist for Lauren. Why? It seems clear that by all of the different times she has contradicted herself that she hasn't been entirely truthful. It surprise me that someone such as yourself (who claims to be impartial) doesn't see that. shrug I am also impartial in this whole issue. I don't see eye-to-eye on various issues w/ Lauren, yet we're not at eachothers' throats & get along okay. At any rate, I also don't see that what's she's written about feeding SD to her cats can automatically be construed as lies. Cathy Exactly. I spoke up because as much as Gaubster etc. have been hammering away accusing her of lying, I don't see it. If something comes up that looks fishy, I'd say so, but so far it hasn't. Lauren doesn't need me (or Cathy) to defend her; she is fully capable of fighting her own battles. But this latest assault against her just seemed so unjustified I finally felt compelled to say something.
|
|
#790
December 1st 03, 10:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:
From: ospam (Yngver) But whatever good things Hill's Pet Nutrition might do, how would that alter the fact that her cats did poorly on SD? I don't see the connection. That's not what I asked her. I asked her if she had ANYTHING positive to say about HILL'S PET NUTRITION. She said no. That discredits her immediately. Nothing anybody or any organization does is completely evil whether you want to admit that or not. I'm just trying to get her to be fair and she isn't interested in fairness--she bashes Hill's incessantly instead. Oh well. 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. The "health problems" seems to have evolved to become anything and everything that has ever gone wrong for her cats--and she attributes them all to Science Diet. That's your conclusion, not mine. That not anyone's conclusion, that is what she SAID. Where? She doesn't even feed her current cats SD, so how could she be blaming it for any health problems her present cats have had? 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? No, and that's my point. You don't constantly bash that product. You could easily do so by following Lauren's tactics--yet do not. That's because you are trying to be fair, like you said. But Steve's Real Food doesn't come up as a topic very often, so I have few opportunities to bash it, if I desired to. How do you know I wouldn't constantly bash it if it were constantly touted here? She takes EVERY opportunity to do so, you could just as easily emulate her. You choose not to--there's a difference. I don't see Steve Crane here constantly hyping the benefits of feeding a Hill's product. He does defend his employer when he sees fit. He even recommended other foods not to long ago in a different post. He doesn't come across to me as being a shill for Hill's. Are you denying that he hasn't recommended other products before? Because he has and that's not just my impression--that is a fact. You appear to be replying to your own quote here, not mine. Again, that's your own interpretation. I'm not saying Steve is shilling for Hill's, but I'm well aware that it has sometimes been a practice of various companies to have someone monitor newsgroup mentions of their product to "correct bad impressions." You're trying to create grey where there is black and white. Why? Which other companies have had people "monitor" forums such as this? I'm not aware of any particular company doing this? That doesn't mean they don't do it. It was part of the PR Dept.'s job at the last place I worked, but it was a service rather than a product. I'm not at liberty to name them, but surely you've heard the well-publicized cases of corporate publicists planting movie and video game rave reviews on pertinent Web sites. I'm not saying Steve does this-- but I do think it's important to take his opinions on his employer's product with a grain of salt. He has contributed much valuable information here, I recognize, but I'm sure even he does not expect everyone to trust his opinions on Hill's without seeking independent verification. Don't sell him short. He acknowledges that his views are his opinions and don't neccessarily represent Hill's. You do remember him saying that, no? Yes. So?
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
