Gaubster's Outlandish Claims (was: "Science Diet" Hairball Control Sensitivity )

Gabster2 posted:

I've never been a fan of Nutro.

So? This is important to us because...?


Because I said so. You don't think it's important?

Not just because "you say so". In fact, YOU have NO credibility with
me, and I doubt you have much with others, based on the feedback you
get.

I've had many bad
experiences w/ Nutro (I'm not the only one) and they are pretty
much the "used
car salesmen" of pet foods w/ their claims and tactics.

Their foods are notoriously high in phosphorus
(among other things)

I've never had any problem, nor have the other 15 or so people I know
who feed it. In fact, my cats have been fed Nutro ever since it
first
came on the market.

Good for you. I look at risk factors when it comes to nutrition
and high
phosphorus foods are something I avoid. Your mileage may vary.

Are you a vet? A food nutritionist? A veterinary researcher?
Thought not.

Thanks for answering your own question. What are you? Any of the
above,
because from the sounds of your posts, you don't seem to be a vet,
a
nutritionist, or a vet researcher?

Very creative snipping, on your part.

I asked the question in resonse to your comment "I believe that all of
their feline dry products acidify a cat's urinary Ph output below the
normal range of 6.2-6.4." [Message-ID:
]

My question was a simple one: Who are *you* to make this judgement?
A vet? A food nutritionist? A veterinary researcher? The answer is
clearly NONE OF THE ABOVE. *I'm* not the one making outlandish claims
with nothing to back them up.

Whatever. Keep promoting your Hill's SD crap. Carry on.
Nobody is listening to you anymore.


You were listening and hearing something that wasn't implied!

Apparently not. Your promotion of SD is infamous in this group. More
than one person has commented on it.

Did I promote
Science Diet in this thread,

No, but see above. 'Nuff said.

-L.

I've never been a fan of Nutro.

So? This is important to us because...?


Because I said so. You don't think it's important?

Not just because "you say so". In fact, YOU have NO credibility with
me, and I doubt you have much with others, based on the feedback you
get.

Then just ignore me if that's the case. But for some reason you can't.

Very creative snipping, on your part.

I didn't do any "creative" snipping. I don't take things out of context...it's
not honest. I quoted the entire sentence..

YOU typed:

Are you a vet? A food nutritionist? A veterinary researcher?
Thought not.

I typed:
Thanks for answering your own question. What are you? Any of the
above,
because from the sounds of your posts, you don't seem to be a vet,
a
nutritionist, or a vet researcher?

Perhaps you made a mistake?



I asked the question in resonse to your comment "I believe that all of
their feline dry products acidify a cat's urinary Ph output below the
normal range of 6.2-6.4." [Message-ID:
]

My question was a simple one: Who are *you* to make this judgement?
A vet? A food nutritionist? A veterinary researcher? The answer is
clearly NONE OF THE ABOVE. *I'm* not the one making outlandish claims
with nothing to back them up.

I am somewhat familiar w/ their line--I have done the research. Why don't you
call the company themselves if you don't believe me. In the meantime, don't
try to paint me as making "outlandish claims". I stated above that, "I
believe...." It even says on their feline bags something to the effect of
"Helps acidify the urine for lower urinary tract health". (I'm going by memory
here) If fed long enough, there is the real possibility that a normal Ph would
be driven lower than the healthy range. If anything has changed, I'm sure
someone will post here.

You were listening and hearing something that wasn't implied!

Apparently not. Your promotion of SD is infamous in this group. More
than one person has commented on it.

Yes, and the bashing of Science Diet is legendary on this group. There are
many Hill's haters here, and I simple defend Hill's, especially against the
outrageous claims that are made against them. Of course, I'm outnumbered, but
so what?

Did I promote
Science Diet in this thread,

No, but see above. 'Nuff said.

Then, don't make it seem that way, ok? You implied that I was promoting SD as
a part of this thread and then you had to take it back. 'Nuff said!

-L. wrote:

text deleted for brevity & bandwidth preservation

Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think Science Diet is bad food?

Justin Case wrote in message ...
-L. wrote:

text deleted for brevity & bandwidth preservation

Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think Science Diet is bad food?


I didn't say it was a "bad food". In fact it probably is better than
quite a few others. What I said is that it "sucks". See my follow-up
to Phil for reasoning. Better yet, do a Google search for "Science
Diet" and "sucks" or "hate" and you will see other testimonials. We
fed it exclusively at the feline specialty hospital where I worked.
The cats wouldn't eat it, it stunk, some choked on it, and we threw
most of it away. It created really stinky poop in the cats that did
eat it. In fact, working for the vet is where I developed my real
dislike for the food. Long ago I had tried it on my own cats, they
quickly refused it, and that was that. I just thought they were
picky. My experience at the hospital proved to me that the food is
crap, not to mention enlightened me to their slimy marketing
techniques. We'd push the food (vets orders) and a few days to weeks
later, people would return it saying their cats hated it. After a
while, I just started wondering why he continued to carry it. But a
lot of what he did was questionable...

I can't speak about Hill's dog foods, other than it gave my dogs
diarrhea which wouldn't resolve, as did most brands of dog food.

-L.

I didn't say it was a "bad food". In fact it probably is better than
quite a few others. What I said is that it "sucks". See my follow-up
to Phil for reasoning.

that's the problem. I don't see any logic or reasoning in what you just said.

My experience at the hospital proved to me that the food is
crap, not to mention enlightened me to their slimy marketing
techniques.

What "slimy marketing techniques" are you talking about? You feed Nutro,
right? Perhaps you should work with or hang around some Nutro reps and you'd
find out what "slimy" is all about. Oh, by the way....how many vets feed Nutro
to their own pets?? Hmm?

-L. wrote:
Justin Case wrote in message ...

-L. wrote:

text deleted for brevity & bandwidth preservation

Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think Science Diet is bad food?



I didn't say it was a "bad food". In fact it probably is better than
quite a few others. What I said is that it "sucks". See my follow-up
to Phil for reasoning. Better yet, do a Google search for "Science
Diet" and "sucks" or "hate" and you will see other testimonials. We
fed it exclusively at the feline specialty hospital where I worked.
The cats wouldn't eat it, it stunk, some choked on it, and we threw
most of it away. It created really stinky poop in the cats that did
eat it. In fact, working for the vet is where I developed my real
dislike for the food. Long ago I had tried it on my own cats, they
quickly refused it, and that was that. I just thought they were
picky. My experience at the hospital proved to me that the food is
crap, not to mention enlightened me to their slimy marketing
techniques. We'd push the food (vets orders) and a few days to weeks
later, people would return it saying their cats hated it. After a
while, I just started wondering why he continued to carry it. But a
lot of what he did was questionable...

I can't speak about Hill's dog foods, other than it gave my dogs
diarrhea which wouldn't resolve, as did most brands of dog food.

-L.

I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks".

I suspect scientists and investigators don't use words like "sucks" to
describe their findings. The numbers once explained speak loud and clear
for themselves.

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

Justin Case wrote:

I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks".

I suspect scientists and investigators don't use words like "sucks" to
describe their findings. The numbers once explained speak loud and clear
for themselves.

I note with some interest there is *NO* response to the above challenge
to post some scientific evidence that a diet of Science Diet food is bad
for cats.

In case some of you don't realize it, all the bashing along with
anecdotal reports don't count as scientific evidence either.

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

In ,
Joe Canuck composed with style:
Justin Case wrote:

I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks".

I suspect scientists and investigators don't use words like
"sucks" to describe their findings. The numbers once explained
speak loud and clear for themselves.

I note with some interest there is *NO* response to the above
challenge to post some scientific evidence that a diet of Science
Diet food is bad for cats.

In case some of you don't realize it, all the bashing along with
anecdotal reports don't count as scientific evidence either.

I'd still like to see any evidence at all about Hill's diets for IBD.
I've asked several times here with no answers, also. You don't always
get an answer to your question on Usenet.

In ,
Joe Canuck composed with style:
Justin Case wrote:

I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks".

I suspect scientists and investigators don't use words like
"sucks" to describe their findings. The numbers once explained
speak loud and clear for themselves.

I note with some interest there is *NO* response to the above
challenge to post some scientific evidence that a diet of Science
Diet food is bad for cats.

In case some of you don't realize it, all the bashing along with
anecdotal reports don't count as scientific evidence either.

I'd still like to see any evidence at all about Hill's diets for IBD.
I've asked several times here with no answers, also. You don't always
get an answer to your question on Usenet.

Justin Case wrote:

I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks".

I suspect scientists and investigators don't use words like "sucks" to
describe their findings. The numbers once explained speak loud and clear
for themselves.

I note with some interest there is *NO* response to the above challenge
to post some scientific evidence that a diet of Science Diet food is bad
for cats.

In case some of you don't realize it, all the bashing along with
anecdotal reports don't count as scientific evidence either.

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