Allergies, Linear Granuloma, and Diet

(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

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.

It was only about 2 weeks or so ago.

Then you should be able to find it easily, since you remember the key words.

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 didn't say her CURRENT cats.

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?


You can see how convoluted Lauren has made
this.

No more convoluted than any long thread, and you have done the same thing.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Your posts implied that other pet companies do this. I don't care about
other
industries.

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?

So I think he is honest. That's all.

You appear to be replying to your own quote here, not mine.

I forgot to "quote" your post before responding.

Okay, I was just not sure because your reply came right after your own
statement.

"Phil P." wrote:

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:


I have read Lauren's posts on this and other boards for a long time. I
don't
see any reason to suspect her of constantly lying or making things up.

Nothing gets past your lightening quick perception, does it!

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?

...and you can't see any reason to think she's a liar and conjures up
bullsh!t stories....??? I think you should see an ophthalmologist... quick
if not sooner! LOL!

If she was feeding her cat SD kibble, there's no actual contradiction, is
there? Do you know for a fact she meant SD canned? Perhaps you can dig up a
post to clarify.

"Phil P." wrote:

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:


I have read Lauren's posts on this and other boards for a long time. I
don't
see any reason to suspect her of constantly lying or making things up.

Nothing gets past your lightening quick perception, does it!

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?

...and you can't see any reason to think she's a liar and conjures up
bullsh!t stories....??? I think you should see an ophthalmologist... quick
if not sooner! LOL!

If she was feeding her cat SD kibble, there's no actual contradiction, is
there? Do you know for a fact she meant SD canned? Perhaps you can dig up a
post to clarify.

(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

If you girls

Whoa! Pardon me?

don't see this, then you must be blind! You have got to admit
that Lauren's stories change like the weather depending on the situation.

Prove it.


Phil
P even quoted her own posts (a number of them) over a period of the last 2 or
3
years. She is clearly contradicting herself!

No, that conclusion is not clear at all to a fair-minded reader.

She is so busy bashing
anything
Hill's related, that she loses track of her stories. That's my problem w/
her.
She doesn't even try to be fair. It's somewhat telling that the females
can't
or won't see it and the males point out the inconsistencies.

You're sort of a jerk, aren't you? It is true, of course, that women generally
have better language skills than men, so it you want to start making gender
assumptions, perhaps the reason you "boys" are finding these so-called
inconsistencies and we aren't is because we are better at reading comprehension
than you are. How's that for a stereotypical answer?

Lauren doesn't
even try to defend herself on this at all. She calls names. You don't think
that is "fishy"?

You "boys" have been doing a lot more name calling than she has--so by your
reasoning, that ought to make your arguments even fishier, huh?

(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

If you girls

Whoa! Pardon me?

don't see this, then you must be blind! You have got to admit
that Lauren's stories change like the weather depending on the situation.

Prove it.


Phil
P even quoted her own posts (a number of them) over a period of the last 2 or
3
years. She is clearly contradicting herself!

No, that conclusion is not clear at all to a fair-minded reader.

She is so busy bashing
anything
Hill's related, that she loses track of her stories. That's my problem w/
her.
She doesn't even try to be fair. It's somewhat telling that the females
can't
or won't see it and the males point out the inconsistencies.

You're sort of a jerk, aren't you? It is true, of course, that women generally
have better language skills than men, so it you want to start making gender
assumptions, perhaps the reason you "boys" are finding these so-called
inconsistencies and we aren't is because we are better at reading comprehension
than you are. How's that for a stereotypical answer?

Lauren doesn't
even try to defend herself on this at all. She calls names. You don't think
that is "fishy"?

You "boys" have been doing a lot more name calling than she has--so by your
reasoning, that ought to make your arguments even fishier, huh?

"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
From: ospam (Yngver)

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.


If you girls don't see this

Girls? *Girls*?!? I'm 53 years old; it's been a long, l-o-n-g time since I
was a girl. Hint: if you're speaking to a woman or to some women, I
wouldn't refer to her/them as "girls"; many of us - incl. me - don't take to
it all that kindly.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
From: ospam (Yngver)

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.


If you girls don't see this

Girls? *Girls*?!? I'm 53 years old; it's been a long, l-o-n-g time since I
was a girl. Hint: if you're speaking to a woman or to some women, I
wouldn't refer to her/them as "girls"; many of us - incl. me - don't take to
it all that kindly.

Cathy

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"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

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

"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

--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon

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?

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 and she has admitted that she hates Hill's and is on an
anti-Hill's agenda. 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!

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.

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?

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.