|
| 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 |
|
#401
February 2nd 04, 06:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#402
February 2nd 04, 06:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#403
February 2nd 04, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#404
February 2nd 04, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#406
February 2nd 04, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steve Crane" wrote:
Analyzing a food based on ingredients is like third grade math. Some people prefer to stay stuck at that level of understanding simply because it requires no further work and allows them to keep and hold emotionally developed decisions about various foods. Some people fear taking the next step and analyzing foods based upon nutrients, for fear it would illustrate to themselves the errors they made originally. This is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard, but pathetic that you believe this. But then again I suppose if you're feeding a highly processed corn based food containing chicken by-product meal, corn meal, brewers rice, corn gluten meal, animal fat (what animal exactly would that be?), chicken liver flavor with synthetic vitamins added in, maybe you should look at your nutrients, because the ingredients sure are crap. Does your employer, Hill's Science Diet, know that you post such nonsense? LMAO 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
|
|
#407
February 2nd 04, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: olitter (PawsForThought)
"Steve Crane" wrote: Analyzing a food based on ingredients is like third grade math. Some people prefer to stay stuck at that level of understanding simply because it requires no further work and allows them to keep and hold emotionally developed decisions about various foods. Some people fear taking the next step and analyzing foods based upon nutrients, for fear it would illustrate to themselves the errors they made originally. This is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard, but pathetic that you believe this. But then again I suppose if you're feeding a highly processed corn based food containing chicken by-product meal, corn meal, brewers rice, corn gluten meal, animal fat (what animal exactly would that be?), chicken liver flavor with synthetic vitamins added in, maybe you should look at your nutrients, because the ingredients sure are crap. Does your employer, Hill's Science Diet, know that you post such nonsense? LMAO Now that's funny! It's not ridiculous, lauren--it's simply the truth. What education or nutritional background do YOU have? Never mind, you'll just lie about it anyway since that seems to be your forte. I'm still waiting for you to apologize to me for your lies about me concerning the issue of declawing.
|
|
#408
February 2nd 04, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: olitter (PawsForThought)
"Steve Crane" wrote: Analyzing a food based on ingredients is like third grade math. Some people prefer to stay stuck at that level of understanding simply because it requires no further work and allows them to keep and hold emotionally developed decisions about various foods. Some people fear taking the next step and analyzing foods based upon nutrients, for fear it would illustrate to themselves the errors they made originally. This is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard, but pathetic that you believe this. But then again I suppose if you're feeding a highly processed corn based food containing chicken by-product meal, corn meal, brewers rice, corn gluten meal, animal fat (what animal exactly would that be?), chicken liver flavor with synthetic vitamins added in, maybe you should look at your nutrients, because the ingredients sure are crap. Does your employer, Hill's Science Diet, know that you post such nonsense? LMAO Now that's funny! It's not ridiculous, lauren--it's simply the truth. What education or nutritional background do YOU have? Never mind, you'll just lie about it anyway since that seems to be your forte. I'm still waiting for you to apologize to me for your lies about me concerning the issue of declawing.
|
|
#409
February 3rd 04, 03:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Yngver" wrote in message ... "Steve Crane" wrote: And subsequently available information was posted about the food(s) you recommended. Gaubster was right about the possibility of problems with your suggested foods. That was not what I was pointing out, however. Whether or not there are "possible problems" with the foods recommended (and by pointing out possible problems, that apparently does not constitute a condemnation, in Gaubster's mind), the context in which they were recommended was in comparison to Special Kitty. The issue ought to be whether or not there are more "possible problems" with the recommended foods than with Special Kitty, but the crux of the matter here was ignored. It's not quite that simple. A suggestion was made for "better" foods based upon Laurens thinking of what consitutues a better food. In her case that is always very elementary ingredient examination. Subsequently it was discovered that at least two of the four foods (the other two are unwilling to share nutrients levels) were excessive for calcium and phosphorus. Such excesses are innappropriate according to the Diplomates of the Americna College of Veterinary Nutrition who members established Key Nutitional Factors for gorthw, adult and senior cats. Lauren objected that someone would "dis" her food suggestions based upon nutrient values. Subsequently a specific food was offered on another thread. Lauren and Jon C both accused me of lying about the carb levels in that food. Both were proven wrong and the 800 number to that food company was offerred for anyone on the NG to prove the reported values correct. I suspect, although I cannot prove, that Lauren fully knew she was in error, but instead of admiting the erro she chose to launch on a campaign of name calling suggesting I should "eat ****". As I commented at the time it was hardly a mature reaction to discovering she was in error. Analyzing a food based on ingredients is like third grade math. Some people prefer to stay stuck at that level of understanding simply because it requires no further work and allows them to keep and hold emotionally developed decisions about various foods. Some people fear taking the next step and analyzing foods based upon nutrients, for fear it would illustrate to themselves the errors they made originally. So in essence what you and Gaubster are complaining about here is that you think Lauren should have recommended other foods than the ones she did, when the OP asked about feeding something better than Special Kitty? I am not "complaining" in any way about what foods she recommends. That is certainly her right to recommend any food she chooses. What is in clear error and illustrative of her immaturity is that when she is faced with hard facts a) excess calcium and phosphorus and b) carb levels which were actually higher than the food she often denigrates, she chose to ignore the facts began a name calling campaign. It would be my opinion that sharing factual information has some value. Instead of admitting she was wrong about the calcium and phosphorus levels and the carb levels of the third food in question she responds by suggesting others are "liars" and that I should "eat ****". I have no objection to any recommendation and by the same token she should be adult enough to take criticism of her recommendations when other disagree with recommendations. Instead she reverts to name calling and obfuscation to the nth degree. The NG's are open for anyone. If you make suggestions or posts notes and someone disagrees you should be expecting counterpoint to your suggestions and an adult will take this as open and honest debate. Unfortunately when challenged with facts she cannot refute she appears unable to accept such criticism in an adult fashion.
|
|
#410
February 3rd 04, 03:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Yngver" wrote in message ... "Steve Crane" wrote: And subsequently available information was posted about the food(s) you recommended. Gaubster was right about the possibility of problems with your suggested foods. That was not what I was pointing out, however. Whether or not there are "possible problems" with the foods recommended (and by pointing out possible problems, that apparently does not constitute a condemnation, in Gaubster's mind), the context in which they were recommended was in comparison to Special Kitty. The issue ought to be whether or not there are more "possible problems" with the recommended foods than with Special Kitty, but the crux of the matter here was ignored. It's not quite that simple. A suggestion was made for "better" foods based upon Laurens thinking of what consitutues a better food. In her case that is always very elementary ingredient examination. Subsequently it was discovered that at least two of the four foods (the other two are unwilling to share nutrients levels) were excessive for calcium and phosphorus. Such excesses are innappropriate according to the Diplomates of the Americna College of Veterinary Nutrition who members established Key Nutitional Factors for gorthw, adult and senior cats. Lauren objected that someone would "dis" her food suggestions based upon nutrient values. Subsequently a specific food was offered on another thread. Lauren and Jon C both accused me of lying about the carb levels in that food. Both were proven wrong and the 800 number to that food company was offerred for anyone on the NG to prove the reported values correct. I suspect, although I cannot prove, that Lauren fully knew she was in error, but instead of admiting the erro she chose to launch on a campaign of name calling suggesting I should "eat ****". As I commented at the time it was hardly a mature reaction to discovering she was in error. Analyzing a food based on ingredients is like third grade math. Some people prefer to stay stuck at that level of understanding simply because it requires no further work and allows them to keep and hold emotionally developed decisions about various foods. Some people fear taking the next step and analyzing foods based upon nutrients, for fear it would illustrate to themselves the errors they made originally. So in essence what you and Gaubster are complaining about here is that you think Lauren should have recommended other foods than the ones she did, when the OP asked about feeding something better than Special Kitty? I am not "complaining" in any way about what foods she recommends. That is certainly her right to recommend any food she chooses. What is in clear error and illustrative of her immaturity is that when she is faced with hard facts a) excess calcium and phosphorus and b) carb levels which were actually higher than the food she often denigrates, she chose to ignore the facts began a name calling campaign. It would be my opinion that sharing factual information has some value. Instead of admitting she was wrong about the calcium and phosphorus levels and the carb levels of the third food in question she responds by suggesting others are "liars" and that I should "eat ****". I have no objection to any recommendation and by the same token she should be adult enough to take criticism of her recommendations when other disagree with recommendations. Instead she reverts to name calling and obfuscation to the nth degree. The NG's are open for anyone. If you make suggestions or posts notes and someone disagrees you should be expecting counterpoint to your suggestions and an adult will take this as open and honest debate. Unfortunately when challenged with facts she cannot refute she appears unable to accept such criticism in an adult fashion.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Science Diet question... | Joe Canuck | Cat health & behaviour | 188 | December 12th 03 12:30 AM |
| Reply for Phil | -L. | Cat health & behaviour | 8 | October 23rd 03 12:30 PM |
| Follow-up question about canned cat food | Jerold Pearson | Cat health & behaviour | 34 | August 8th 03 01:52 AM |
I'm still
Linear Mode
