Allergies, Linear Granuloma, and Diet

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
"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?

....because she's been vehemently against dry food since day one.... 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...



...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?

You're absolutely not "impartial" as you say you are or you're simply
obtuse...


Do you know for a fact she meant SD canned?

Based on her posting history, absolutely *yes* -- although she can and
probably will say no because it suits her agenda... like she usually does...


Perhaps you can dig up a
post to clarify.

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

"PawsForThought" wrote in message
...
From: "Phil P."


"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
From: "Cathy Friedmann"

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.

Bullsh!t! I was already here for a few months.....


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.

Thanks for the update.

I don't know how many times I posted that PR finally admitted the meeting
was arraigned by a mutual friend.... It boggles the mind that Cathy
remembers everything else but that... If this is of such great
significance to her... she must lead a very dismal life...

But that "arraignment" means nothing since your sock puppet is the one who
posted it, yes? LOL

As usual, you're parroting something someone else said without the slightest
clue or care of whether its true or not as long as it suits your agenda...

This was a lame attempt at trying to divert attention away from your
conjured up, bullsh!t stories... You didn't really think it would work, did
you? Was that your best shot? LOL!

"PawsForThought" wrote in message
...
From: "Phil P."


"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
From: "Cathy Friedmann"

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.

Bullsh!t! I was already here for a few months.....


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.

Thanks for the update.

I don't know how many times I posted that PR finally admitted the meeting
was arraigned by a mutual friend.... It boggles the mind that Cathy
remembers everything else but that... If this is of such great
significance to her... she must lead a very dismal life...

But that "arraignment" means nothing since your sock puppet is the one who
posted it, yes? LOL

As usual, you're parroting something someone else said without the slightest
clue or care of whether its true or not as long as it suits your agenda...

This was a lame attempt at trying to divert attention away from your
conjured up, bullsh!t stories... You didn't really think it would work, did
you? Was that your best shot? LOL!

"PawsForThought" wrote in message
...
From: "Phil P."


"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
From: "Cathy Friedmann"

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.

Bullsh!t! I was already here for a few months.....


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.

Thanks for the update.

I don't know how many times I posted that PR finally admitted the
meeting
was arraigned by a mutual friend...


"From: ibidem )

"From: ibidem"? You've got to be joking! He never got over publicly losing
a major battle with me over feeding dry food... so he conjured up the whole
PR fallacy because I humiliated him... Actually only a few jerks believed
him.... because they wanted to believe him for their own reasons... to suit
their agenda...

As usual, you're again parroting something someone else said without the
slightest clue or care of whether its true or not as long as it suits your
agenda...

This was another lame attempt at trying to divert attention away from your
conjured up, bullsh!t stories... It didn't work, either...

"PawsForThought" wrote in message
...
From: "Phil P."


"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
From: "Cathy Friedmann"

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.

Bullsh!t! I was already here for a few months.....


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.

Thanks for the update.

I don't know how many times I posted that PR finally admitted the
meeting
was arraigned by a mutual friend...


"From: ibidem )

"From: ibidem"? You've got to be joking! He never got over publicly losing
a major battle with me over feeding dry food... so he conjured up the whole
PR fallacy because I humiliated him... Actually only a few jerks believed
him.... because they wanted to believe him for their own reasons... to suit
their agenda...

As usual, you're again parroting something someone else said without the
slightest clue or care of whether its true or not as long as it suits your
agenda...

This was another lame attempt at trying to divert attention away from your
conjured up, bullsh!t stories... It didn't work, either...

"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".

"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".

From: ospam (Yngver)


"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.

My previous cats were actually fed both wet and dry food, if that makes a
difference. Back then I had absolutely no idea about the health aspects of
feeding dry food. It wasn't until I started looking into feline nutrition that
I found out what effects a dry food diet could have on a cat. If I were to
guess, I would say I probably fed them more dry food than wet food back then.
If I knew people were going to be so interested in what I fed my now deceased
cats, I certainly would have kept a day to day diary

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

From: ospam (Yngver)


"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.

My previous cats were actually fed both wet and dry food, if that makes a
difference. Back then I had absolutely no idea about the health aspects of
feeding dry food. It wasn't until I started looking into feline nutrition that
I found out what effects a dry food diet could have on a cat. If I were to
guess, I would say I probably fed them more dry food than wet food back then.
If I knew people were going to be so interested in what I fed my now deceased
cats, I certainly would have kept a day to day diary

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

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.