On 4/10/2010 5:49 PM, cshenk wrote:
"Char" wrote
cshenk wrote:

I've found you to be so clueless that it would be silly to think
anything you post is substantial or factual.

Love you too. Perhaps one day you will recognize that you drive people
away really fast with your attitude which impacts the group. This was
once a thriving place I gather.

I wouldn't know. It's been dead as long as I've been reading here.

Gee, that's not what the old timers tell me. They email me (the few
watching here till at all).

You lose the small amount of credibility you may have had when you lie.



What I am saying is that you've done absolutely no research on any of
this and it shows. Maybe you need to just shut up and read for awhile
till you understand what's going on. If you don't think research is
necessary why post and prove you are clueless?

Char, you only accept folks who believe like you do. Anyone else is
'clueless', 'stupid', 'lacks research' etc.

So sorry the truth hurt so bad. Ok, no I'm not sorry. However, I know
enough about nutrition to know that you have never looked into it
whatsoever. If you want to consider that a flame or whatever you just go
for it.


You are a self proclaimed expert. Good on you. I am sure you enjoy
yourself immensely. Meantime i checked your links and found them the
worst sort of mis-information and literally dangerous in some cases.

There would be no way for someone with your knowledge about pet
nutrition to judge that.


If you *wish* to believe in such, by all means do so since you will
anyways. Telling people though that they shouldnt vaccinate pets
'because you know more than vets do' is not going to get you very far.


Never said that. I know when people can't find fault with what I post
and make up things like you just did I must have hit a nerve. I don't
post thoughts and feelings, I post facts.

I'd never be interested in trying to convert you to what is real. There
are a lot of people out there with questions about their pets, people
who are searching for better food, better medicine, better health for
them. That is who gets me and who actually reads the links. At one time
that was me, not that I ever stop learning.

I've provided scientific research on much of this. Vaccines do cause one
hell of a lot of illness in our pets and in us as well. It's a fact that
they change your DNA, cause cancer and that they cause autoimmune
disease. Making stuff up can't compare to university studies ever.

"sighthounds & siberians" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:49:45 -0400, "cshenk" wrote:

"Char" wrote
cshenk wrote:

I've found you to be so clueless that it would be silly to think
anything you post is substantial or factual.

Love you too. Perhaps one day you will recognize that you drive people
away really fast with your attitude which impacts the group. This was
once a thriving place I gather.

I wouldn't know. It's been dead as long as I've been reading here.

Gee, that's not what the old timers tell me. They email me (the few
watching here till at all).

Actually, it's true. The real old-timers who were on these newsgroups
when they began have all gone to another venue. I don't think they're
emailing you.


I don't think it's true at all. When I got my Murphy about a year and a
half ago you could count on dozens of posts a day. Char is one of the
reasons most of the regulars left. I have gone to the other venue, and I've
also emailed with cshenk, but I still watch this group. I am glad that you
(S&S) and cshenk are still here to call out Char on her BS.

"Char" wrote

I'd never be interested in trying to convert you to what is real. There
are a lot of people out there with questions about their pets, people who
are searching for better food, better medicine, better health for them.
That is who gets me and who actually reads the links. At one time that was
me, not that I ever stop learning.

Too bad they wil never find it here. You have way too much *attitude* to
ever reach anyone.

"Wingnut" wrote
"sighthounds & siberians" wrote

Love you too. Perhaps one day you will recognize that you drive people
away really fast with your attitude which impacts the group. This was
once a thriving place I gather.

I wouldn't know. It's been dead as long as I've been reading here.

Gee, that's not what the old timers tell me. They email me (the few
watching here till at all).

Actually, it's true. The real old-timers who were on these newsgroups
when they began have all gone to another venue. I don't think they're
emailing you.

I don't think it's true at all. When I got my Murphy about a year and a
half ago you could count on dozens of posts a day. Char is one of the
reasons most of the regulars left. I have gone to the other venue, and
I've also emailed with cshenk, but I still watch this group. I am glad
that you (S&S) and cshenk are still here to call out Char on her BS.

Grin, I recall reading here when it was like 100 a day (or so it seemed).

I probably need to email back and find where they went. I'm not perfect but
i would like to talk about dogs without all this abuse.

There must be good places to talk about dogs and ask questions without all
this mess that destroys this place. Too bad. It used to be a decent place.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:46:16 -0400, "cshenk" wrote:

"Wingnut" wrote
"sighthounds & siberians" wrote

Love you too. Perhaps one day you will recognize that you drive people
away really fast with your attitude which impacts the group. This was
once a thriving place I gather.

I wouldn't know. It's been dead as long as I've been reading here.

Gee, that's not what the old timers tell me. They email me (the few
watching here till at all).

Actually, it's true. The real old-timers who were on these newsgroups
when they began have all gone to another venue. I don't think they're
emailing you.

I don't think it's true at all. When I got my Murphy about a year and a
half ago you could count on dozens of posts a day. Char is one of the
reasons most of the regulars left. I have gone to the other venue, and
I've also emailed with cshenk, but I still watch this group. I am glad
that you (S&S) and cshenk are still here to call out Char on her BS.

Grin, I recall reading here when it was like 100 a day (or so it seemed).

I probably need to email back and find where they went. I'm not perfect but
i would like to talk about dogs without all this abuse.

There must be good places to talk about dogs and ask questions without all
this mess that destroys this place. Too bad. It used to be a decent place.

I've been here since 1998 or 1999, and I don't think it's ever been as
busy as 100 a day, but definitely dozens. Not sure what venue Wingnut
is referring to; the regulars I'm thinking of are on a social
networking forum but there is very little dog discussion going on.
Wherever you go, though, if people disagree with you they're going to
tell you, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

"cshenk" wrote in message
...
"Wingnut" wrote
"sighthounds & siberians" wrote

Love you too. Perhaps one day you will recognize that you drive
people
away really fast with your attitude which impacts the group. This was
once a thriving place I gather.

I wouldn't know. It's been dead as long as I've been reading here.

Gee, that's not what the old timers tell me. They email me (the few
watching here till at all).

Actually, it's true. The real old-timers who were on these newsgroups
when they began have all gone to another venue. I don't think they're
emailing you.

I don't think it's true at all. When I got my Murphy about a year and a
half ago you could count on dozens of posts a day. Char is one of the
reasons most of the regulars left. I have gone to the other venue, and
I've also emailed with cshenk, but I still watch this group. I am glad
that you (S&S) and cshenk are still here to call out Char on her BS.

Grin, I recall reading here when it was like 100 a day (or so it seemed).

I probably need to email back and find where they went. I'm not perfect
but i would like to talk about dogs without all this abuse.

There must be good places to talk about dogs and ask questions without all
this mess that destroys this place. Too bad. It used to be a decent
place.

I just popped in a bit the last couple of days, after months and months of
absence, and see that Char is still up to her crap. That one statement
(yesterday?) "Honestly I don't try to change everyone's mind. I'm more
interested in posting the truth and I try to make people think instead of
blindly listening to vets." damn near made me choke! She is trying to claim
she THINKS, rather than just spouts rhetorical blather from specious
websites?! Ridiculous! She's a fanatic, and Winston Churchill said it
best: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject".

I see there are very few of the "old school" here. It's too bad really.
This is the first forum I found when I was first researching breeds. It
took me three years to decide on the right breed and find a breeder, another
to wait for a pup, and my Kiba is three years old now, so I was here for
quite a while. But I haven't been in ages, and I can see why, if Char is
still here spouting off her religion, with no regard to anyone's opinion
except her own. It's sad, really.

Phyrie

"Phyrie" wrote
"cshenk" wrote
"Wingnut" wrote

I don't think it's true at all. When I got my Murphy about a year and a
half ago you could count on dozens of posts a day. Char is one of the
reasons most of the regulars left. I have gone to the other venue, and
I've also emailed with cshenk, but I still watch this group. I am glad
that you (S&S) and cshenk are still here to call out Char on her BS.

Grin, I recall reading here when it was like 100 a day (or so it seemed).

There must be good places to talk about dogs and ask questions without
all this mess that destroys this place. Too bad. It used to be a decent
place.

I just popped in a bit the last couple of days, after months and months of
absence, and see that Char is still up to her crap. That one statement
(yesterday?) "Honestly I don't try to change everyone's mind. I'm more
interested in posting the truth and I try to make people think instead of
blindly listening to vets." damn near made me choke! She is trying to
claim she THINKS, rather than just spouts rhetorical blather from specious
websites?! Ridiculous! She's a fanatic, and Winston Churchill said it
best: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject".

The one lately is that she knows more than the vets and we should listen to
her and not vaccinate pets.

Favorite was that shouldnt heartworm preventive other pets in a house with a
heartworm recovery because the vector is a mosquito (yes, there is a vector
involved, takes about 1 min of googling them to see that and it's all over
the info packs you get from the vet about it). Rescue shelter and every vet
we've seen say risk of reinfection is higher and advise all pets be on
preventive so they don't share potentially invected vector mosquitos.

I see there are very few of the "old school" here. It's too bad really.
This is the first forum I found when I was first researching breeds. It
took me three years to decide on the right breed and find a breeder,
another to wait for a pup, and my Kiba is three years old now, so I was
here for quite a while. But I haven't been in ages, and I can see why, if
Char is still here spouting off her religion, with no regard to anyone's
opinion except her own. It's sad, really.

Phyrie, I think I remember you. About 3-4 years ago. Someone was messing
with you for wanting a pedigree and accusing you of supporting 'puppy mills'
while you were in fact discussing how to find a reputable breeder and had a
good list of what to look for. We talked about the breeder my cat Roscoe
had come from. A reputable one who adopted out the rare throwbacks if what
was wrong would still allow a decent quality of life. Neutered of course.
The messing with people with pure-breds was endemic in the group then but
what I recalled was the list of what to look for. There was some
interesting info I would not have thought of.

Perhaps a new thread if you feel so inclined? I'd like to know how it all
turned out as obviously you did find the right one. Named the pooch after
Japanese Anime? Cute! We are the ones who had just returned from living in
Japan 6.5 years if that rings a bell.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:25:05 -0400, "cshenk" wrote:


The one lately is that she knows more than the vets and we should listen to
her and not vaccinate pets.

Before the majority of the regulars took off for other fora, they
regularly suggested that Char would be a better advocate for raw
feeding it she didn't combine that advice with things like
anti-vaccination advice, anti-heartworm preventative advice, etc. Of
course she's free to do what she wishes, and perhaps that's just as
well, as I believe it affects credibility. Moderation can be such a
good thing - for example, I believe that over-vaccination can
cause/contribute to autoimmune problems, and so I don't vaccinate my
animals every year. However, advice to never vaccinate at all is bad
advice.

Favorite was that shouldnt heartworm preventive other pets in a house with a
heartworm recovery because the vector is a mosquito (yes, there is a vector
involved, takes about 1 min of googling them to see that and it's all over
the info packs you get from the vet about it). Rescue shelter and every vet
we've seen say risk of reinfection is higher and advise all pets be on
preventive so they don't share potentially invected vector mosquitos.

I've treated several rescues for heartworm and have never heard from a
vet, or read oin any source, that risk of reinfection is higher in
dogs treated for heartworm. I wonder whether they were referring to
dogs that weren't completely free of microfilaria? Really doesn't
matter, though, because I'm pretty confident that most people who have
treated a dog for heartworm are going to keep all their pets on
heartworm preventative.

There are sometimes people with little to no dog knowledge who come
here for information, so it's especially important to be responsible
in posting answers to questions. Back when there were a lot of
"newbies" asking questions, many regulars had an unofficial rule that
if they didn't know the answer to a question, they didn't answer it;
rather than saying something you thought might be true or heard from
somewhere else or whatever, you'd let someone more knowledgeable on
that subject answer. If someone posted something that was inaccurate
information or irreponsible advice, a lot of people often chimed in to
correct it. That's not necessarily because they were being mean or
argumentative; it's because on the internet, you can say anything you
want whether it's true or not. Inexperienced dog owners might not
recognize what's good advice and what's not, and there was a core of
very knowledgeable dog folk who were committed to providing reliable,
accurate information to people seeking answers to questions.

"sighthounds & siberians" wrote
"cshenk" wrote:

The one lately is that she knows more than the vets and we should listen
to
her and not vaccinate pets.

Before the majority of the regulars took off for other fora, they
regularly suggested that Char would be a better advocate for raw
feeding it she didn't combine that advice with things like
anti-vaccination advice, anti-heartworm preventative advice, etc. Of
course she's free to do what she wishes, and perhaps that's just as
well, as I believe it affects credibility. Moderation can be such a
good thing - for example, I believe that over-vaccination can
cause/contribute to autoimmune problems, and so I don't vaccinate my
animals every year. However, advice to never vaccinate at all is bad
advice.

Understood. Also, I vaccinate only on schedules. Most of them are 'once
done, never again'.

Favorite was that shouldnt heartworm preventive other pets in a house with
a
heartworm recovery because the vector is a mosquito (yes, there is a
vector
involved, takes about 1 min of googling them to see that and it's all over
the info packs you get from the vet about it). Rescue shelter and every
vet
we've seen say risk of reinfection is higher and advise all pets be on
preventive so they don't share potentially invected vector mosquitos.

I've treated several rescues for heartworm and have never heard from a
vet, or read oin any source, that risk of reinfection is higher in
dogs treated for heartworm. I wonder whether they were referring to
dogs that weren't completely free of microfilaria? Really doesn't
matter, though, because I'm pretty confident that most people who have
treated a dog for heartworm are going to keep all their pets on
heartworm preventative.

Perhaps. Mine still tested positive but was supposedly no longer able to
infect local mosquitos by the time we got him.

I live in an area that is basically recovered swamps. Mosquitos are quite
an issue. Heartworm for pets isnt the only problem we have due to that.
Most folks though do not use preventive here so infection level is higher
than normal due to that an local conditions.

There are sometimes people with little to no dog knowledge who come
here for information, so it's especially important to be responsible
in posting answers to questions. Back when there were a lot of
"newbies" asking questions, many regulars had an unofficial rule that
if they didn't know the answer to a question, they didn't answer it;
rather than saying something you thought might be true or heard from
somewhere else or whatever, you'd let someone more knowledgeable on
that subject answer. If someone posted something that was inaccurate
information or irreponsible advice, a lot of people often chimed in to
correct it. That's not necessarily because they were being mean or
argumentative; it's because on the internet, you can say anything you
want whether it's true or not. Inexperienced dog owners might not
recognize what's good advice and what's not, and there was a core of
very knowledgeable dog folk who were committed to providing reliable,
accurate information to people seeking answers to questions.

Ok, but if we want to have a group here at all, we might want to ask
questions before firing full force salvos.

Some here *assumed* because they never *asked* that I didnt know heartworm
transmission. I in fact 'assumed' experienced people with it knew that so
wasnt needed to elaborate the point.

The core of base people is gone now. With luck, we can regrow but it will
require more compassion and less judgemental calls to make that happen.

I almost left last night then decided to see what today would bring. I
really want to make this a workable spot again where folks can talk about
their dogs. Right now, it isnt. Perhaps it might become so though again?

"cshenk" wrote in message
...
"Char" wrote
cshenk wrote:

I've found you to be so clueless that it would be silly to think anything
you post is substantial or factual.

Love you too. Perhaps one day you will recognize that you drive people
away really fast with your attitude which impacts the group. This was
once a thriving place I gather.

Indeed I agree. She contradicts herself too. Char has some good ideas,
like raw diet, but then she gets too nuts. I prefer to follow the advice of
my vet and keep my dog on Heartgard, rather than giving him a Bud Light and
hoping for the best.