Re: Allergies, Linear Granuloma, and Diet

[EMAIL PROTECTED]  (GAUBSTER2) wrote:

>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  (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?

Okay, so you can't find it either. So we'll have to discard that point of your
argument, since it can't be supported.
>
>>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

So what are you saying? You aren't calling her a liar, you say, but you do say
she "wants to mislead." What's the diff? Not backtracking here, are you?


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

Where did she say "Gaubster, I am on an anti-Hill's agenda."? Hmm? C'mon.

 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!

LOL. Precisely what am I risking? Twice I've explained what I meant by
impartiality. I'm not wasting my time doing it again.
>
>> 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.

Do you have any idea how stupid that statement makes you sound?
>
>> 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?


When placed in context, the posts are not contradictory. That is just as plain
to me as you say the opposite is plain to you.
>
>> 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.
>
Such as?