Sharon Too wrote:
The problem with you, "Char", "Chardonney9", or whatever you choose to call
yourself - is that you are simply a conspiracy theorist and no matter how
much fact, science or professional experience is given to conspiracy
theorists there is no convincing them.

Convincing me of what? I've produced solid evidence that the pesticides
in Frontline are dangerous and should not be used on pets. Why is it you
avoid defending the sale of Frontline and other pesticides even though
we all know you do it?

http://www.sailhome.org/Concerns/Bod.../Fipronil.html

A study on mice found that fipronil poisoning caused excitation in the
central nervous system, leading to damage in nerve cells related to
the over-expression of glutamate transmitters. This is evidence of
excitotoxicity.

In other studies where the animals survived, fipronil

‣ Disrupted endocrine activity and caused adverse reproductive effects

‣ Impaired spinal cord development

‣ Caused developmental delays, reduced brain weight, reduced cognition,
hearing impairment and hair loss

‣ Caused thyroid cancer


You are the one stupid enough to believe that kibble is not the over
processed and a useless food that causes untold hardships on pets and
their owners alike.


http://www.rawmeatybones.com/articles/nexus.pdf

Processed foods are not good for pets nor people. They've been cooked to
death and have lost their value as food which is why if you read a bag
of kibble you will see dozens of added vitamins and minerals in an
attempt to return it to an actual food.




And when the wind has gone from their conspiracy sails they revert to
bringing up old arguments for the sake of sounding right and re-digesting
their theory (which they see as fact), or out right lying - which you most
certainly have done, personally, by taking my words and altering them as an
attribution to me. The latter you have yet to explain because you know you
have been caught in your lie.

There was no lie. I'm so sorry you are so dense as to not get the point
I was making but to pretend it was anything else shows how uneducated
you are and how desperate to pin anything you can on me so as to avoid
facing the truth.


At this point, your conspiracy BS has gone from laughable to pathetic, but
has always been dangerous.



I'm not the one pushing pesticides and crap food on unsuspecting pet
owners, you are.

At least in Australia vets are realizing the dangers of feeding kibble
and making their concerns known. When will vets in the US do the same?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:20:27 -0400, Char
wrote:

Sharon Too wrote:
I've never changed my "ID" whatever that is.

Chardonney9 is now "Char"....

Your ignorance is so obvious.



I got a new computer. However, changing that does not make me pop out of
kill files but you'd not know that. And this is not the first time
you've claimed I "changed my ID". Paranoia going on there?

Ignorance? Don't you know how kill files work? I've not changed anything
that would affect one.

Yes, I think you have.

Old: chardonnay9
New: Char

That's probably enough to get past "old" filters. No, I don't think
you did it intentionally. Like, for example, how you intentionally
ignore my request that you provide a cite (just one!) for your claim
that certain vets are hypothesizing that certain plant materials cause
cancer in dogs, etc.

In article ,
Char wrote:
I got a new computer.

Oh, me too - several, actually, and I've never found it
necessary to change how I identify myself.

Still waiting for you to explain to us what a "hypothesis"
is, and who it is who's doing research into vegetables
causing cancer in dogs.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Convincing me of what? I've produced solid evidence

Your definitio of 'solid evidence' comes from wacko wensites or opinions of
stufies, not the actial peer reviewed studies.

You don't want to hear or read anything but what you beleive to be the
truth. 100% of the time you always, ALWAYS, say that everyine else is wrong
and you are right.

That is a conspiracy theorist.

How much Frontline have you sold to pets this month Sharon?

I'll answer that when you answer my ages old question about why you altered
my post and then reposted it attributed to me to fit your nasty little war.

How many
dogs are you gonna kill from selling pesticides to unknowing innocent pet
owners?

Haven't yet. Keep up the insinuations.

Your definitio of 'solid evidence' comes from wacko wensites or opinions
of stufies, not the actial peer reviewed studies.

Shouldn't eat and type at the same time. Let's try that again:

Your definition of 'solid evidence' comes from wacko websites or opinions of
studies, not the actial peer reviewed studies.

Sharon Too wrote:
Your definitio of 'solid evidence' comes from wacko wensites or opinions
of stufies, not the actial peer reviewed studies.

Shouldn't eat and type at the same time. Let's try that again:

Your definition of 'solid evidence' comes from wacko websites or opinions of
studies, not the actial peer reviewed studies.





Thanks. I was starting to wonder what
"stufies" was slang for ;-)