 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / March 2004Just A Word Gaubster(Was the truth about Christina)
> Hailey, you're full of it. If you thought they were "being a bit harsh", you > certainly kept your mouth shut about it in order to "belong to the clique". > Now, "all of a sudden", you think I'm "a mental case" and "they were right". > Baloney. Your alliances are transparent enough for a blind person to see. Oh, > and then you call me a moron on top of it all. You're the same as the rest of > them--no wonder you want to join their clique! newsflash. I am not in any clique. JFYI, I do not talk to ANYONE outside this ng. Not one single ngrouper. I don't need to belong to any clique. I am just sick and tired of the fighting, and if I have alliances they belong to what *I* believe is right, which hopefully even YOU could support. Not my beliefs, mind you, but my right to own them and express them. I do not expect you to come 'round to my way of thinking, I merely express my thoughts on any given subject and that's that. Pretty much like you do, Gaubster. > Why do you continue to perpetrate that myth? What's your agenda--to defend > Lauren's bad behavior no matter what?? She lied about me and I called her out > on it. It's doesn't get any simpler than that. You're extremely obtuse if you > can't get that through your thick head. Ok, fair enough. I have no first hand knowledge of the whole SC affair. I apologize for spewing off about it. It won't be mentioned by myself again. I don't even want to get into the fights. I just wish ppl could let bygones be bygones. And it is true, since I joined the list that every time Lauren posts (well okay, not EVERY time) you follow up almost anything that she says with calling her a liar. I've seen this a number of times in the very short time I've been aboard. And I don't get it.... I try very hard to behave in a way I'd want others to treat me, meaning I am willing to say I am sorry, or I am wrong, or I did not understand and made a mistake. It's not always easy for me, but that is what I do try to do. Okay, that said I will drop it, Gaubster. > You're the one with the fantasies! You choose to involve yourself and then say > YOU'RE tired?? Like Lauren, you like playing the victim, too, I see. Gaub, listen carefully. I get involved cus it is a frigging NEWS GROUP, these do not work unless people actually GET INVOLVED.. HELLO? By involvement I mean expressing opinions (preferably in a decent way) and asking questions (even if you think they are stupid ones) and offering answers (even when you expect you will be attacked by at least someone not agreeing with you.) Most of the people do *not* choose to attack, but to *inter* act and help others (like me) with valuable info. These are okay with me Gaub. I don't wanna be your friend, I don't wanna belong to your click, or anyone else's click, I just wanna add something and take something away from the ng for me and my kitties. THAT was why I joined. I truly am sorry you see me as playing a victim. I certainly do not mean to come across that way. I see me as a person willing to listen and learn- if the discussion is free of nastiness. Crikey, don't we have enough of that in our real lives? Mean people you have to work with, get bumped around in stores by, I am sure all of us can think of lots of mean people. Here we all cat lovers. Coming together to share knowledge, or glean knowledge, or just plain chat about our kitties. I loved sharing my pics once I finally figured out a way. I don't wanna fight, I want to enjoy the NG and the info flowing on it. It has become apparent though, that that doesn't happen much, and that's too bad. Sincerely, Hailey > > Hailey, you're full of it. If you thought they were "being a bit harsh", > you [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Sincerely, > Hailey Wow. This is, I think, the 3rd post I've seen from you that is really... *good*! Solid. :-) Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon > Wow. This is, I think, the 3rd post I've seen from you that is really... > *good*! Solid. :-) > > Cathy Thank you Cathy. I guess all my english classes were not for naught ;) >From: "Hailey" hailey@cmi.net >newsflash. I am not in any clique. JFYI, I do not talk to ANYONE outside >this ng. Not one single ngrouper. I don't need to belong to any clique. I am [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >thoughts on any given subject and that's that. Pretty much like you do, >Gaubster. Fair enough. Well said. >> Why do you continue to perpetrate that myth? What's your agenda--to >defend [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >if you >> can't get that through your thick head. >Ok, fair enough. I have no first hand knowledge of the whole SC affair. I >apologize for spewing off about it. It won't be mentioned by myself again. I >don't even want to get into the fights. I just wish ppl could let bygones be >bygones. I accept your apology. Thank you for being honest. >And it is true, since I joined the list that every time Lauren >posts (well okay, not EVERY time) you follow up almost anything that she >says with calling her a liar. Well, that's been happening for about 3 weeks now. If you're new, it certainly appears as if it's been going on "forever". ;) >I truly am sorry you see me as playing a victim. I certainly do not mean to >come across that way. Words on a computer screen don't always convey what we're trying to express. >I've seen this a number of times in the very short time I've been aboard. >And I don't get it.... >I try very hard to behave in a way I'd want others to treat me, meaning I am >willing to say I am sorry, or I am wrong, or I did not understand and made a >mistake. >It's not always easy for me, but that is what I do try to do. Yeah, it frustrates me too. I've been constantly attacked by "regulars" (although I suppose I've been around long enough to be considered a regular myself) for expressing my opinions and after awhile of being nice it seems as if I'm not getting anywhere. Lauren doesn't like me because she hates Science Diet and I don't. I've done my research and have real life experience with some of the topics discussed in this forum. A lot of times they conflict with what is considered "politically correct" here. My issue with Lauren here has nothing to do with anything related to Hill's and only the fact that I'm tired of her smearing people that she doesn't agree with. Again, Hailey, my apologies for coming across to YOU so harshly. I'm sorry and I don't want you to worry about it. :) Yeah, it frustrates me too. I've been constantly attacked by "regulars" > (although I suppose I've been around long enough to be considered a regular > myself) for expressing my opinions and after awhile of being nice it seems as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nothing to do with anything related to Hill's and only the fact that I'm tired > of her smearing people that she doesn't agree with. Wouldn't that apply to yourself? It certainly does apply to me. Smearing people because I do not agree with them. I have another letter to write after this one, because I have been guilty of this as well. No one is ever gonna agree with everything I say or think. That's life, I accept it but I don't think we should sit around and listen, or participate, or ignore when someone is treated the way some people have been. There has to be a line in the sand. at least for me. Yes, sometimes I cross it, and then scoot back over. When I cross it it's wrong and nothing I can say or do makes it right. It's not wrong to disagree, but it is wrong to belittle people, hurt people, scandalize people and bash them. And I need to keep in mind all people make mistakes. I sure do, so why not you and every one else? > Again, Hailey, my apologies for coming across to YOU so harshly. I'm sorry and > I don't want you to worry about it. :) Thank you, Gaubster. Hailey >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >Lauren doesn't like me because she hates Science >Diet and I don't. That is a crock and you know it. Many people like Science Diet. Cathy for instance feeds it to her cats and I like Cathy. The difference between you and her is she is actually a nice person who is intelligent and is a valued member of this newsgroup.. Ever since I posted about my now deceased cats throwing up and getting sick from Science Diet, you have not let me alone. It got to the point where I even had to dig out my deceased cats' medical records to prove to you that it indeed did happen. You have hounded me ever since to the point of being psychotic about it. No matter how many times I've explained the situation to you about my deceased cats, you cannot comprehend. Instead you call me a liar, follow me on almost every post I make to the point of it being laughable, because it's so pathetic. The fact that you would hound someone about their deceased cats is really disgusting. All of your posts to me have been psychotic. You really do have mental problems. Maybe you should consider therapy? It might do you some good, that is if you actually allow the therapist to help you, instead of being like a brick wall. Whenever anyone has explained anything to you, you do not comprehend. You are the most thick headed obnoxious mean-spirited, obtuse, dense, psychotic person I've seen post here. You follow me around like a love sick puppy. Almost every single post you make has my name in it? Why is that? Are you obsessed with me. Sorry to disappoint, but I am very happily married :) 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: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you that it indeed did happen. You have hounded me ever since to the point of > being psychotic about it. > <snipped> > Lauren Oh come off it!!, You have pretty much drug out the "poor me, I'm a victim" thing just a bit too much. Nobody that I saw on this NG every gave you a bad time about the death of your cats. It has NEVER been an issue of your cats that resulted in the name calling. You have only recently been digging around in the sympathy well looking for a way out. It was your comments directed to me to "eat sh.t" and other such immature comments that has resulted in the responses you get. You have been proven wrong so many times, by so many people, for so many different things. Instead of facing the music as an adult you have chosen to revert to name calling and now you're busy looking for the sympathy vote. You have yet to illustrate you have the maturity to admit mistakes and act like an adult. That's the major source of the problem, not your deceased cats. "Steve Crane" <eodemolay@coxnospam.net> > You have been proven wrong so many times, by so many > people, for so many different things. I´m amazed to see this coming from you. I guess some people don´t have a mirror. >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >>Lauren doesn't like me because she hates Science >>Diet and I don't. > >That is a crock and you know it. Many people like Science Diet. I know that, but I'm talking about YOU. > Ever since I posted about my now deceased cats throwing up >and getting sick from Science Diet, you have not let me alone. It got to the >point where I even had to dig out my deceased cats' medical records to prove >to >you that it indeed did happen. Lauren, you've told so many lies, you've forgotten the truth! Phil P was the one that was questioning your contradicting posts, not me. Don't blame that one on me! > No matter how many times I've explained the >situation to you about my deceased cats, you cannot comprehend. Again, not true. I expressed my sympathy for your situation (twice) and you threw it back in my face since you don't like me. Have you forgotten that? >Instead you >call me a liar, follow me on almost every post I make to the point of it >being >laughable, because it's so pathetic. NO, not on "every post", only the posts where you try to smear me by lying. >The fact that you would hound someone >about their deceased cats is really disgusting. I HAVE NEVER HOUNDED YOU ABOUT YOUR DECEASED CATS--------------MORE LIES FROM YOU! Where are you getting this stuff? >All of your posts to me have >been psychotic. Oh boy. Come back to reality, lauren. You know that's just not true. I suppose you enjoy painting yourself as a victim, though? >Why is that? Are you obsessed with me. Sorry to >disappoint, but I am very happily married :) ...you're the psychotic one! I keep telling you, I am married--why are you obsessed with that angle? << Lauren doesn't like me because she hates Science Diet and I don't. >> You kept telling me it wasn't about Science Diet and I was a moron for thinking it was and now you are saying that is the root of it all. Let it go, sheesh. Don't you have better things to think about? Do you think about this all day at work? I assume you work? You say you have a wife, go pay attention to her instead of brooding about this. Lauren apologized re: the declawing issue, perhaps not as contritely as you would like, but she did and you are just obsessing about it. It's craaaazy. Candace (take the litter out before replying by e-mail) See my cats: http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other than human." (Loren Eisely) > << Lauren doesn't like me because she hates Science > Diet and I don't. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as you would like, but she did and you are just obsessing about it. > It's craaaazy. He has serious issues. I have him and Crane KF'd but I keep reading you guys responding to him and it's nuts. Nuts I tell you. lol > > << Lauren doesn't like me because she hates Science > > Diet and I don't. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > He has serious issues. I have him and Crane KF'd but I keep reading you > guys responding to him and it's nuts. Nuts I tell you. lol Except for this particular issue w/ Lauren, I've always found Steve Crane to be fine. I know he works for Hills, & I know that some (not necessarily most) of his opinions may be colored by his line of work/employment, but hey - everyone's thoughts are influenced by this or that. Gaubster, Otoh.... he's another story altogether, IMO. I don't bother to read most of his posts; the ones that I do read are read out of pure (morbid? <g>) curiosity. And, as Alice (I believe it was) said, his posts just tend to become "Curiouser & curiouser." ;-? Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon > Except for this particular issue w/ Lauren, I've always found Steve > Crane to be fine. I know he works for Hills, & I know that some (not > necessarily most) of his opinions may be colored by his line of > work/employment, but hey - everyone's thoughts are influenced by this > or that. Mine were colored by some of his recent comments re demanding apologies, and making up numbers to suit his agenda wrt foods not SD, Wellness for example. I don't have time to read a pet food reps lies about foods that aren't SD. I don't have issues with SD, in fact I switched Bonnie to SD sensitive skin because she will only eat dry food, and she had some flakey skin and was chewing on one particular place. > Gaubster, Otoh.... he's another story altogether, IMO. I don't bother > to read most of his posts; the ones that I do read are read out of > pure (morbid? <g>) curiosity. And, as Alice (I believe it was) said, > his posts just tend to become "Curiouser & curiouser." ;-? I used to read them out of curiosity but they were always the same and I kept wanting to comment. It never went anywhere and I'd always have to repeat myself because he seems to have a short-term memory problem so I gave up. > Mine were colored by some of his recent comments re demanding apologies, > and making up numbers to suit his agenda wrt foods not SD, Wellness for > example. I don't have time to read a pet food reps lies about foods that > aren't SD. I don't have issues with SD, in fact I switched Bonnie to SD > sensitive skin because she will only eat dry food, and she had some > flakey skin and was chewing on one particular place. The apology was, and is due, for comments surrounding the Wellness foods. The information I gave relative to the carbohydrate levels of the canned salmon wellness product in question was correct. It was in fact higher in carbs than any adult Science Diet product. I posted the consumer service phone number here numerous times and yet some continued to deny the reality that the carb level was indeed higher than other foods. In face of incontrovertible proof - the phone numberof the Wellness Company itself - some on the NG chose to revert to the usual name calling when they have been proven in error. To date none of the three antagonists who proclaimed the Wellness food was lower in carbohydrates have had the probity and maturity to admit the error. This isn't my problem, but does give other on the NG some insight into the these three individuals. I have never, nor do I need to, "lie" about anything relative to foods. I've spent over 20 years teaching small animal clinical nutrition and my comments are nearly always backed up with peer reviewed published data. I will challenge false concepts posted here. How an adult responds to peer reviewed published proof that ones concepts are false and unsupported gives a good clue to the maturity level of the individual. > The information I gave relative to the > carbohydrate levels of the canned salmon [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > in carbohydrates have had the probity > and maturity to admit the error. There was no error except on your part. You should have done the math. I did the math. I was correct. I told you to do the math. You refused. I called the company. We did the math together. I was correct. The CS rep you spoke to gave you a miscalculated number. The carb content of Wellness canned IS lower than Science Diet. Check it out for yourself. If you don't and continue to post this claim even though you've been informed it is a false claim, you will be committing libel. Megan  Signature"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke Learn The TRUTH About Declawing http://www.stopdeclaw.com Zuzu's Cats Photo Album: http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22 "Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way." - W.H. Murray >From: zuzu22@webtv.net >> The information I gave relative to the >> carbohydrate levels of the canned salmon [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Megan Very interesting, Megan. I know Steve Crane also fudged the numbers regarding Nature's Variety by using the guaranteed analysis. I also contacted their company to make sure what they had sent me was correct. I feed a raw diet, so the numbers aren't really significant to me, but I don't know, it seems to me everytime there is anything posted about a food that is not Science Diet, Steve Crane is there bashing it and fudging numbers. As to carb levels regarding Wellness vs. Science Diet, I think a person also needs to look at what carbs are in each food, not just the levels. Personally I would rather feed a food that is more bioavailable to the cat. I don't have a list of ingredients in front of me, but if I remember, Wellness carbs are mostly veggies whereas Science Diet is grains like corn gluten. 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: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >Very interesting, Megan. I know Steve Crane also fudged the numbers >regarding >Nature's Variety by using the guaranteed analysis. > I feed a raw diet, so >the numbers aren't really significant to me, but I don't know, it seems to me >everytime there is anything posted about a food that is not Science Diet, >Steve >Crane is there bashing it and fudging numbers. Just because you have a habit of lying, doesn't mean that everyone else that you don't agree with, lies. Prove him wrong or shut up! >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Just because you have a habit of lying, doesn't mean that everyone else that >you don't agree with, lies. Prove him wrong or shut up! Megan already did prove him wrong. BTW, I see you're still obsessed with me, LOL. You are truly psychotic!!!!!! 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: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >>> I feed a raw diet, so >>>the numbers aren't really significant to me, but I don't know, it seems to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Megan already did prove him wrong. BTW, I see you're still obsessed with me, >LOL. You are truly psychotic!!!!!! I responded to a post of yours and now you are responding to a post of mine. That's how it works...nothing obsessive about it (although you DO seem to be obsessed with me, otherwise you wouldn't bother to respond.) If you actually believed the allegations that you make, you wouldn't respond to me and would have me killfiled. But of course, once again, it's all made up in your head. You're the one not playing with a full deck. Not to mention, Megan didn't "prove" anything, just like you never "prove" anything. It's simply her word vs someone else's. Again it comes down to a matter of credibility and I've been around long enough to know who to trust and who likes to make false allegations. Not to mention, Megan didn't > "prove" anything, just like you never "prove" anything. It's simply her word > vs someone else's. Again it comes down to a matter of credibility and I've > been around long enough to know who to trust and who likes to make false > allegations. Megan did post the name of the person at Wellness who gave her the information. Why don't you call him and check for yourself. Then it won't be simply a matter of one person's word against another's. She said the name of the person she spoke to at Wellness is Farook. MaryL >From: "MaryL" >Not to mention, Megan didn't >> "prove" anything, just like you never "prove" anything. It's simply her [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >be simply a matter of one person's word against another's. She said the >name of the person she spoke to at Wellness is Farook. So, you are disregarding Steve Crane's "source" and believing Megan? That's really what you are saying. Are you sure it isn't "Farooq"? >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>From: "MaryL" > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Are you sure it isn't "Farooq"? Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on your stupidity? If you weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. No, that is not what Mary is saying. She's telling you to call Wellness to verify the information if you don't believe Megan. Typical response from you, LOL ________ 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: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html > Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm Exactly. If he wants to learn who may be handing out correct information, all he has to do in this case is call Wellness himself. He has even been given the name of the person he can call to see if the information can be verified. MaryL >From: "MaryL" >Exactly. If he wants to learn who may be handing out correct information, >all he has to do in this case is call Wellness himself. He has even been >given the name of the person he can call to see if the information can be >verified. Why don't you all contact Wellness and ask for that person and see if you get the same info? Steve Crane gets conflicting info from someone at OMH and you don't believe him? Why wouldn't you believe him...because you don't think he can be trusted? That's what it comes down to. From the sounds of things, people at Old Mother Hubbard need to get their info correct. > >From: "MaryL" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > can be trusted? That's what it comes down to. From the sounds of things, > people at Old Mother Hubbard need to get their info correct. Actually, I didn't mention the issue of credibility ... you did. A call to Wellness might clear this up. You are correct that someone at Old Mother Hubbard apparently used incorrect information, so it would be best to start with someone who usually normally works with these calculations. It sounds like that is what Megan did when she waited for the appropriate person to return, but you could check that out for yourself. MaryL >From: "MaryL" > You are correct that someone at Old Mother >Hubbard apparently used incorrect information, so it would be best to start >with someone who usually normally works with these calculations. It sounds >like that is what Megan did when she waited for the appropriate person to >return, but you could check that out for yourself. Then everybody needs to quit calling Steve Crane a liar. If everybody here is to be believed, then the problem must lie with Old Mother Hubbard themselves--giving out inaccurate information. >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >>So, you are disregarding Steve Crane's "source" and believing Megan? That's >>really what you are saying. >Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on your stupidity? If you >weren't >so pathetic, it would be funny. No, that is not what Mary is saying. She's >telling you to call Wellness to verify the information if you don't believe >Megan. Typical response from you, LOL ...and that's a typical response from you. Are you stalking me again, Lauren (the liar)? Interestingly enough, when I tell you to call Hill's to verify what I say, you castigate that suggestion. Now, you are not? I suppose I can add hypocrite to your list of qualities. >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >to >your list of qualities. LOL, I see it's easier for you to attack me. Don't you remember you're the one who has stalked me nonstop in this newsgroup, Gaubster aka Globster aka Fraudster aka Idiot, and most of all Troll, who can't comprehend a thing. Now, why don't you contact Wellness if you don't believe Megan, instead of attacking people who tell you to verify the information. What's the matter, are you afraid of what you might find out? ________ 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: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) > Now, >why don't you contact Wellness if you don't believe Megan, instead of >attacking >people who tell you to verify the information. What's the matter, are you >afraid of what you might find out? Excellent! Another false allegation! Who EXACTLY did I "attack"?? Interestingly enough, when I've told you in the past to call Hill's if you didn't believe the info I passed on--you attack me for daring people to call the company themself to verify. You are, indeed, a hypocrite. > Don't you remember you're the one >who has stalked me nonstop in this newsgroup, Gaubster aka Globster aka >Fraudster aka Idiot, and most of all Troll, who can't comprehend a thing. More name calling. You're really becoming a parody of yourself! "PawsForThought" <darnit7@aol.comnolitter> wrote in message > Very interesting, Megan. I know Steve Crane also fudged the numbers regarding > Nature's Variety by using the guaranteed analysis. I also contacted their > company to make sure what they had sent me was correct. Again , utter BS, I have analyticals on all the Nature's Variety product, printed on, and produced by Nature's Variety themselves. >From: zuzu22@webtv.net >> The information I gave relative to the >> carbohydrate levels of the canned salmon [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Megan Megan, grow up. It's not libel if a company spokesperson "gave out the wrong info". I suppose the info you got was not given in error?? I tend to believe Steve Crane's numbers before I believe yours--why? Because you respond with derision and contempt in 99% of your posts. You're just not credible. You add nothing but venom to any conversation that you choose to involve yourself in. >It's not libel if a company spokesperson >"gave out the wrong info". It is if the info is corrected and you keep spouting incorrect numbers in an attempt to bash the food. Just like your continuous lies about Wellness containing "bacteria from feces." >I suppose the info you got was not given >in error?? No, it wasn't. I originally called andasked for who was in charge of making these calculations and had to leave my phone number because the man I neede to speak with was in India until the end of January/beginning of February. I received a phone call in early February from Farook and we went over the numbers together. That's when it was discovered that the carb content was either a misprint on the info sheet or a miscalculation. >I tend to believe Steve Crane's numbers >before I believe yours-- Steve purposely kept spouting misinformation knowing full well it was a lie. All he had to do was do the math, which he refused to do because he didn't want to prove himself wrong. Even doing calculations on the guaranteed analysis doesn't present the numbers he claimed, and when he posted that the company gave him the number of 75% moisture and I used that to do a base calculation, he then accused me of pulling a number out of thin air when in fact it was the number *he* posted and said came from the company. The lack of credibility both you and Steve exhibit is the problem here. Megan Signature"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke Learn The TRUTH About Declawing http://www.stopdeclaw.com Zuzu's Cats Photo Album: http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22 "Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way." - W.H. Murray > No, it wasn't. I originally called andasked for who was in charge of > making these calculations and had to leave my phone number because the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > discovered that the carb content was either a misprint on the info sheet > or a miscalculation. OK Meagan, why don't you provide for us the carb levels you received from Wellness for the canned Salmon feline product. Let's see who chooses to lie. >OK Meagan, why don't you provide for >us the carb levels you received from >Wellness for the canned Salmon feline >product. Let's see who chooses to lie. According to my notes Turkey and Salmon as fed is Protein 13% Fat 8.7% Fiber .1% Moisture 75% Carbs 3.2% DMB is Protein 52% Fat 34.8% Fiber .4% Carbs 12.8% The as fed numbers on the website, which are the same as the numbers listed here, are correct. If you want to verify what I said simply call OMH in the morning and ask to speak to Farook. In the meantime, do the math yourself and then try to tell me this food contains 27% carbs. It's not possible and you know it. Megan Signature"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke Learn The TRUTH About Declawing http://www.stopdeclaw.com Zuzu's Cats Photo Album: http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22 "Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way." - W.H. Murray I just received the following directly from Old Mother Hubbard. Your "notes" were aparently wrong. I think Meagan you either were mistaken in your notes or perhaps deliberately erred. Doesn't matter which to me. Hi Steve: The information you requested for Turkey & Salmon on a dry matter basis is listed below: Carbs: 27.0% Calcium: 0.82% Phosphorus: 1.14% Customer Service -----Original Message----- From: eodemolay@cox.net [mailto:eodemolay@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:32 PM To: Info Subject: Talk To Us Form Submitted via Web The following information has been submitted: First Name: Steve Last Name: Crane Email: eodemolay@cox.net ZIP/Postal Code: 66614 Country: US Phone: Call during: Day Fax: Comment Type: Product Question Product: Wellness Canned Cat Comments: Could you please provide some additional information about the Wellness feline canned Turkey & Salmon. I'm looking for the levels of three things. It would help if this was on a "dry matter basis". If dry matter basis is not available if you could provide the actual moisture content I can work it backwards to get the dry matter basis. Carbohydrate % DMB = Calcium % DMB = Phosphorus % DMB = How to contact: Email Number of Dogs: 2 Number of Cats: 1 Breeds: Pomeranian dogs, DSH cat Here's the source document on the email. Return-Path: <brobitaille@omhpet.com> Received: from omhmail.omhpet.com ([38.149.221.37]) by lakemtai05.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with ESMTP id <20040301163110.LOCL17976.lakemtai05.cox.net@omhmail.omhpet.com> for <eodemolay@cox.net>; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:31:10 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Talk To Us Form Submitted via Web Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:31:07 -0500 Message-ID: <736061A15359164B87C7B505C8FB0598016531AC@omhmail.omhpet.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Talk To Us Form Submitted via Web thread-index: AcP/E+emBSGPEVStQKCW7tfj3w5STAAloOzw From: "Info" <Info@omhpet.com> Sender: "Beverly Robitaille" <brobitaille@omhpet.com> To: <eodemolay@cox.net> > >OK Meagan, why don't you provide for > >us the carb levels you received from [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - W.H. Murray Steve wrote: <snip incorrect info> Don't bother to post until you have spoken directly with Farook. It's clear they haven't updated, and if you did the math with even the guaranteed analysis you would see that 27% *isn't possible*, yet you insist on promoting this false number. I have a message from Farook on my voicemail that said he will be out of the office until Thursday of this week, so I know you didn't speak with him. Megan Signature"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke Learn The TRUTH About Declawing http://www.stopdeclaw.com Zuzu's Cats Photo Album: http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22 "Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way." - W.H. Murray She's Miss Perfect.......must be awesome to be you huh Meg > Steve wrote: > <snip incorrect info> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - W.H. Murray >She's Miss Perfect.......must be awesome to be you huh Meg Must be sober to be her, huh Christina?!? >> Steve wrote: >> <snip incorrect info> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> >> - W.H. Murray You're one to talk trust me. > >She's Miss Perfect.......must be awesome to be you huh Meg > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >> > >> - W.H. Murray >You're one to talk trust me. No one can trust you, Christina -- especially your poor, poor children. Now be a good little blow pig and go get yourself a fix. You're shaking..... eq >> >She's Miss Perfect.......must be awesome to be you huh Meg >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> >> >> >> - W.H. Murray Ahh Megan you going to keep up with the joke huh? "Steve Crane" <eodemolay@coxnospam.net> dumped this in news:EKc1c.7686 $Pc.6345@okepread02 on 02 Mar 2004: > Ahh Megan you going to keep up with the joke huh? I don't think many of us think it is a joke. Address the matter, contact Farook and let us know what you find out, hhmm? She'll accept your apology. If you are so stupid as to read that there were errors in the analysis, yet continue to contact "support" rather than the one who *knows* there were errors and provided the correct analysis, who is the one laughing? We know you want to believe the incorrect info, but the readers here should know the correct info. The more you deny it, the more they will do the analysis themself and you'll look more the fool. >We know you want to believe the >incorrect info, but the readers here should >know the correct info. The more you deny >it, the more they will do the analysis >themself and you'll look more the fool. His staunch defense of numbers he *knows* are incorrect is not only unethical, but sad and laughable, as is his refusal to publicly do the math. Here is the math. It couldn't be plainer: On the label the guaranteed analysis contains: Crude Protein Not Less Than 10.0% Crude Fat Not Less Than 6.0% Crude Fiber Not More Than 1.0% Moisture Not More Than 78.0% 78+1+6+10=95 100-95= 5 This means that 5% of the food is carbohydrates Calculating the DMB number: The reciprocal of 78% (the figure for moisture) is .22 5 divided by .22= 22.7% carbs As Served Per Can: Protein:13.0% Fat:8.7% Fiber:0.1% Moisture:75% 13+8.7+.1+75.8 100-96.8=3.2 This means that 3.2% of the food is carbohydrates. Calculating the DMB number: The reciprocal of 75% (the figure for moisture) is .25 3.2 divided by .25= 12.8% carbs According to the math there is no way possible that the Turkey and Salmon canned food can contain 27% carbs. The maximum it "could" contain would be 22.7% and the number it does contain is 12.8%, which is lower than Hills. Megan Signature"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke Learn The TRUTH About Declawing http://www.stopdeclaw.com Zuzu's Cats Photo Album: http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22 "Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way." - W.H. Murray >From: Cheryl jlhshadow@NOSPAMhotmail.com >Address the matter, contact >Farook and let us know what you find out, hhmm? She'll accept your >apology. If you are so stupid as to read that there were errors in the >analysis, yet continue to contact "support" rather than the one who >*knows* there were errors and provided the correct analysis, who is the >one laughing? What kind of fly-by-night company is this if they can't provide the correct information every time?? Why do you and your ilk insist that Farooq is the ONLY person who knows the "right" info?? You only want to believe what you want to hear. That's patently obvious. Steve Crane did what any consumer would do--he contacted them directly. If they can't consistently provide the "correct info", then they surely can't be trusted to provide a consistently nutritional product. >We know you want to believe the incorrect info, but the >readers here should know the correct info. The more you deny it, the >more they will do the analysis themself and you'll look more the fool. >Ahh Megan you going to keep up with >the joke huh? You're gutless. You know full well you are wrong and that the info is wrong, yet you persist because you can't stand to admit it. You are too cowardly to call and talk to the same person I did and instead resort to emailing customer service who clearly still has the incorrect info. Lame, lame, lame. Megan Signature"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke Learn The TRUTH About Declawing http://www.stopdeclaw.com Zuzu's Cats Photo Album: http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22 "Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way." - W.H. Murray >From: zuzu22@webtv.net >>Ahh Megan you going to keep up with >>the joke huh? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Megan LOL, it is pretty lame, isn't it? Pathetic! 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: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >LOL, it is pretty lame, isn't it? Pathetic! Do you ever have ANYTHING substanative to add to the discussion, Lauren? Or do you just agree with everything certain people post? <bracing myself for another round of attacks and lies from Lauren > Do you ever have ANYTHING substanative to add to the discussion, Lauren? Or do > you just agree with everything certain people post? > > <bracing myself for another round of attacks and lies from Lauren> Oh get over it already! *I* have seen several very useful posts from Lauren. Is this whole thing kind of juvenile, or is it just me? Hailey >Oh get over it already! *I* have seen several very useful posts from Lauren. >Is this whole thing kind of juvenile, or is it just me? >Hailey No, it's sure not just you. Strikes me as a puerile obssession. >From: yngver@aol.comnospam (Yngver) >>Oh get over it already! *I* have seen several very useful posts from Lauren. >>Is this whole thing kind of juvenile, or is it just me? >>Hailey >> >No, it's sure not just you. Strikes me as a puerile obssession. LOL! He is truly psychotic. You think he'd have better things to do than follow me around this newsgroup. I really think he could benefit from therapy. But then again, he would actually have to comprehend what the therapist is telling him :) 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: zuzu22@webtv.net >>Ahh Megan you going to keep up with >>the joke huh? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >emailing customer service who clearly still has the incorrect info. >Lame, lame, lame. What's lame is that you continue to defend a company that clearly can't get it's "ducks in a row". Again, if they can't consistently provide the "correct info" about their products (apparently they, themselves don't even know), then what makes you or anybody else trust their nutritional efficacy? >From: zuzu22@webtv.net >Don't bother to post until you have spoken directly with Farook. Farooq is the ONLY person who can give this info out correctly?? What kind of company is this? > I have a message from Farook on >my voicemail that said he will be out of the office until Thursday of >this week, so I know you didn't speak with him. Steve NEVER said that he did speak w/ Farooq. Nice spin, Megan. Gaubster wrote: >Farooq is the ONLY person who can give >this info out correctly?? Noooooo, Farook (correct sp.) is the ONLY person that can verify that I called him and that there was a mistake found. >>I have a message from Farook on >>my voicemail that said he will be out of >>the office until Thursday of this week, so I >>know you didn't speak with him. >Steve NEVER said that he did speak w/ >Farooq. Nice spin, Megan. I never claimed Steve said he talked to Farook. I'm saying I know he couldn't have. Learn to read. Learn to comprehend. Megan Signature"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke Learn The TRUTH About Declawing http://www.stopdeclaw.com Zuzu's Cats Photo Album: http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22 "Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his way." - W.H. Murray >>Farooq is the ONLY person who can give >>this info out correctly?? > >Noooooo, Farook (correct sp.) is the ONLY person that can verify that I >called him and that there was a mistake found. Nobody is questioning that you talked with a specific person. The question is why the company can't seem to provide consistent, correct information. You're spinning once again. >>>I have a message from Farook on >>>my voicemail that said he will be out of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>Steve NEVER said that he did speak w/ >>Farooq. Nice spin, Megan. >I never claimed Steve said he talked to Farook. I'm saying I know he >couldn't have. How is that relevant then? By mentioning it at all, you are insinuating that Steve said he talked to him. (...) > Nobody is questioning that you talked with a specific person. The question > is why the company can't seem to provide consistent, correct information. Now here's something I thought I'd never say: He has a point. (...) > > >I never claimed Steve said he talked to Farook. I'm saying I know he > >couldn't have. > > How is that relevant then? By mentioning it at all, you are insinuating that > Steve said he talked to him. Reassuringly, Mr G immediately hops back onto the fruitcake wagon. Steve. >>It's not libel if a company spokesperson >>"gave out the wrong info". > >It is if the info is corrected and you keep spouting incorrect numbers >in an attempt to bash the food. Just like your continuous lies about >Wellness containing "bacteria from feces." Just do a google search on enterococcus faecium and see for yourself. I don't lie. We have somebody else on this ng that is notorious for that and I think you know who it is. ;/ >>I tend to believe Steve Crane's numbers >>before I believe yours-- > >Steve purposely kept spouting misinformation knowing full well it was a >lie. Why must you paint EVERYBODY ELSE as a liar? >The lack of credibility both you and Steve exhibit is >the problem here. I've got to say that this is the nicest post I've ever seen from you. Is this one of your New Year's resolutions? ;) gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) wrote in message > Just do a google search on enterococcus faecium and see for yourself. I > don't lie. We have somebody else on this ng that is notorious for that > and I think you know who it is. ;/ Gosh, don´t you know bacteria can be grown in little dishes? <g >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >> Just do a google search on enterococcus faecium and see for yourself. I >> don't lie. We have somebody else on this ng that is notorious for that >> and I think you know who it is. ;/ > >Gosh, don´t you know bacteria can be grown in little dishes? <g> And this is relevant why?? Or you can just spout non-sequitars. > There was no error except on your part. You should have done the math. I > did the math. I was correct. I told you to do the math. You refused. I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Megan Megan, I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are trying to say. I initially calculated values based on GA's which are notoriously prone to error. I was the first one who called Wellness and posted the actual carb levels, along with a phone number to for everyone else to call if they choose. I'm quite sure some did, but refused to admit the error later. The consumer rep I talked to didn't give me a "mis-calculated" error at all, she faxed the DMB levels. Just to make sure the issue here was the Wellness Salmon canned product. Please advise just what carb level you think is in the Salmon product. >From: maccandace@aol.comlitter (MacCandace) ><< Lauren doesn't like me because she hates Science >Diet and I don't. >> > >You kept telling me it wasn't about Science Diet and I was a moron for >thinking >it was and now you are saying that is the root of it all. That's not what I said. I meant exactly what I said above--nothing more and nothing less. Nice spin, though. >Do you think about this all day >at work? I assume you work? You say you have a wife, go pay attention to >her >instead of brooding about this. LOL!! Now you give marital advice?? Everything is quite lovely in my marriage, thanks for asking! ;) Apparently you are brooding about this or you wouldn't have posted?>Lauren apologized re: the declawing issue, >perhaps not as contritely as you would like, but she did and you are just >obsessing about it. An apology is nothing if not contrite. No?? What Lauren offered was not an apology. That's okay. I now know (and everyone else does too) that she is a liar. >From: "Hailey" hailey@cmi.net Goobie said: >> Hailey, you're full of it. If you thought they were "being a bit harsh", >you >> certainly kept your mouth shut about it in order to "belong to the [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >Sincerely, >Hailey Hailey, ignore Gaubster. He IS a nut case. He has hounded me non stop ever since I posted that my deceased cats did poorly on Science Diet. He is one sick puppy. 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
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.