Ignore them! Don't answer them! Skip over them! Kill file them! I am not
advocating this because I am against the free flow of ideas or against
anyone advocating a certain dogfood. I am advocating this because he/she
is and wil continue to post using multible names and identities and
continue to lie about their connection with Science Diet. If they are
ignored then they will eventually get it and leave. If they come back
under a new psuedoname, they will be easy to spot. They will be the only
ones to hystarically defend Science Diet as if we ar insulting one of
their family members. They will be the ones who put down every brand of
dogfood besides Science Diet. Then maybe we can have an intelligent
dicussion about dogfoods.

In article ,
diddy wrote:
She's trying to apply science rather than emotion, and is asking for
answers when she posts Scientific data.

I don't believe she's ever posted "scientific data" (and
I'll note that an awful lot of what gets thrown around here
tends to take the form of "unscientific data"). She's said
that she finds so-called "scientific" arguments more
convincing but hasn't contributed any "science" herself.

And what passes for "science" these days and in these parts
just makes me worry for the future.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

2/3 of the Social Security Trustees are political appointees

in thread : (Melinda
Shore) whittled the following words:

In article ,
diddy wrote:
She's trying to apply science rather than emotion, and is asking for
answers when she posts Scientific data.

I don't believe she's ever posted "scientific data" (and
I'll note that an awful lot of what gets thrown around here
tends to take the form of "unscientific data"). She's said
that she finds so-called "scientific" arguments more
convincing but hasn't contributed any "science" herself.

She's posting what has been posting before trying to get rational answers
so that she can process it. Since there haven't been logical replies, she
posted it again, trying to get her questions answered. I can't speak for
her, but i think she had decided last to feed eagle pack. But she's still
searching. Since YOU,Melinda, had recommended it. But then you turned
around and suggested that she not feed it to her puppy.. So I think she's
still here trying to figure out what to feed her puppy. And trying to get
answers. And the more you guys make fools of yourselves by calling her
Steve/Gaubster and falling on your swords, the sooner she'll discover what
buffoons you guys are, and then make a choice for the diet that just makes
sense to her. YOU guys are Science Diets best salespeople. MAybe we
should all start calling you Steve Crane and Gaubster Sock puppets?

In article ,
diddy wrote:
She's posting what has been posting before trying to get rational answers
so that she can process it. Since there haven't been logical replies, she
posted it again, trying to get her questions answered.

I think she's hunting a chimera, myself. One of the things
here that just doesn't seem to be sinking in is that despite
all of Crane's efforts to pump his company (and Gaubster
seems to be here primarily to function as Steve's bumbling
comic sidekick), the fact remains that for an awful lot of
us who *have* used Science Diet feeds the non-prescription
diets have produced lousy results. That's entirely
subjective, of course, and not the kind of information she's
looking for, which is where I think she's making a very big
mistake.

But then you turned
around and suggested that she not feed it to her puppy..

Right, because I don't think that their Holistic Select
kibble has sufficient protein for young puppies. You told
her that an "all life stages" food was necessarily a puppy
food, but if you'd taken a look at the composition of this
particular food you'd have seen that it very obviously is
not. Do you really think that I should have told her to
feed her puppy something unsuitable?

And the more you guys make fools of yourselves by calling her
Steve/Gaubster

I never did. In fact, I was the first one who responded
that she obviously isn't.

Look, I don't know why you insist on turning every
difference of opinion into a vendetta but frankly it's kind
of ugly. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean that
it's not possible to have a rational discussion about food.
I can't ice skate, myself, but I don't assume that someone's
pulling a fast one on me when I see ice skating on
television.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

2/3 of the Social Security Trustees are political appointees

This thread is so insulting and my guess is; that's the objective.
It's hard for me to imagine that the only requirement leading to these
false accusations is likeness of opinion and scientific reasoning and
Comcast.

Diddy is correct, I just bought a pug puppy that I will be bringing
home with me on Saturday and since it's been several years since I've
had a dog, and the food trends have seemingly changed, I wanted to make
an informed decision. Quite frankly, I am spending a lot of money on
this puppy and I care about what she eats.

My interest in over-all nutrition runs deeper than that however, not
that I think I owe any of you an explanatio, as it's none of anybody's
business... I will offer it up to help clear up this absurd and
erroneous information being strewn about, practically bordering libel
in my opinion.

For clarification purposes, I am a mother of two young boys and
currently run an alternative parenting website. The website was started
as counter-solution to a very parallel debate in infant nutrition.
Without getting too personal here, personal reasons precluded my being
able to breastfeed my children and in trying to find out what was the
best infant formula to feed my first child, I was shocked and dismayed
to find out this decision would lead to a barrage of personal attacks
and admonishment of my choices and unflattering critique of the
supplement(s) I chose to use.

In effort to find out as much information as I could, being that the
health of my child was of utmost importance, I was demoralized by all
the junk science that being thrown out there by way of demeaning and
misrepresenting the truth about infant formula. Ironically, many of the
same arguments were made; big, bad company Nestle trying to make babies
sick for the monetary gain of the medical community, corn derivative
arguments, msg, intelligence influencer etc. I even had people tell me
that people that children who were formula fed were more likely to be
garbage men and criminals that those who were breastfed. eye-roll
(Don't even get me started!)

Now, admittedly, these samples are not completely analogous since in
dog foods, you do have a choice and if you choose to use infant formula
exclusively, you're pretty much committed to that choice forever.
However, since I have done so much research on infant nutrition and
sorted out the facts from the extrapolations and junk science, I feels
that give me a unique perspective in researching dog food, at least for
me. Personally, I am just much more comfortable relying on scientific
support than anecdotal evidence. Sure, anecdotal might greatly
influence me, but based on what I've researched, it's simply not
enough for me to make first trial decision on.

I have also been victim of so many "holistic" zealots in the parenting
world, specifically online, and trust me, I have tried their, what I
like to call - voodoo medicine, and it has not worked *for me* or *my
children*. I suppose this has left me very skeptical.

I have not really posted any scientific data because I'm not really
here for that reason. I didn't start my research here. I have been
researching this for about 4 weeks off and on. It just seem to me that
the Hill's people on this forum have been most forthcoming in offering
up evidence and scientific data and common sense, IMO. I have done a
search on this NG, to kind of go through several years of postings and
then took the information they offered and did my own look-ups to see
if they were accurate. I found that they were being truthful and
accurate.

However, I do think there is validity to having whole foods in a pet's
diet. The best of both worlds is to have a combination of man-made
supplements, IMO, and whole food combination. I did like the Eagle Pack
and I appreciate the information I've received here about that
particular product, however, in re-evaluating it and after learning
about the phosphorus/calcium levels in EP (and researching it myself),
EP is too high in both of these for *me* to be comfortable with it.
Plus, their website says their ratios are created so that people can
give their dogs raw food to supplement and since my puggy isn't going
to be getting a NY strip from me anytime soon, that just didn't seem
like a good fit.

I recently wrote an email to the author of "The Pug Handbook". I have a
lot of respect for her, for many reasons and she is also a pet
nutritionist as well as an expert on the pug breed. She recommended
Eukanuba, but also a few of the other nutraceuticals. I was impressed
with her knowledge and her reasoning behind her suggestions. She also
suggested SD Nature's Best line.

Most likely, I will go with Science Diet Nature's Best or Eukanuba. I'd
like to make a decision in the next week since "Paris" will be coming
home on Saturday, weaned to Iams lamb & rice and I'm not too crazy
about that formula.

At any rate, it's really too bad that this forum has degraded to
this. I'm not really interested in keeping this kind of company and
as some of you applaud your ability to make someone who disagrees with
you, leave, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that it's not just
this particular post but a general lack of respect and disgust.

If SDNB or Euk doesn't work out for my dog, I will be greatly
surprised, but I will make a switch based on what's best for my pet
and as I close in on my decision, I feel very confident that I have
done the legwork to make an educated decision. That's all I can hope
for.

In closing,
Jessica

BTW, (I can't believe I even have to mention this), my screen name has
changed because I was trying to subscribe to a list in which my yahoo
account was not allowing me to participate, so my hubby switched me to
gmail. I'm still and
.)

Jessica

In article .com you write:
This thread is so insulting and my guess is; that's the objective.
It's hard for me to imagine that the only requirement leading to these
false accusations is likeness of opinion and scientific reasoning and
Comcast.
. . .

In closing,
Jessica


Well written Jessica! :-)

--Marshall

In article ,
Marshall Dermer wrote:
Well written Jessica! :-)

Maybe, but how much does it actually mean? In "science," if
the data don't match the observable results we tend to
suspect that there's something wrong with the data, although
clearly there are those who upon finding a conflict between
data and reality will tend to favor chucking reality.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

2/3 of the Social Security Trustees are political appointees

In article ,
Marshall Dermer wrote:
Well written Jessica! :-)

Maybe, but how much does it actually mean? In "science," if
the data don't match the observable results we tend to
suspect that there's something wrong with the data, although
clearly there are those who upon finding a conflict between
data and reality will tend to favor chucking reality.
That's something, but it isn't "science."
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

2/3 of the Social Security Trustees are political appointees

On 20 Mar 2005 13:25:14 -0800, wrote:

My interest in over-all nutrition runs deeper than that however, not
that I think I owe any of you an explanatio, as it's none of anybody's
business... I will offer it up to help clear up this absurd and
erroneous information being strewn about, practically bordering libel
in my opinion.

i haven't seen anything approaching anywhere near libelous, especially
not where your reputation is concerned.

Personally, I am just much more comfortable relying on scientific
support than anecdotal evidence. Sure, anecdotal might greatly
influence me, but based on what I've researched, it's simply not
enough for me to make first trial decision on.

if i were in a position where i felt i had to ask the advice of
strangers, i would start contacting responsible Pug breeders and ask
them what they recommend, then take it from there.

I have not really posted any scientific data because I'm not really
here for that reason.

what *is* your purpose here?

I didn't start my research here. I have been
researching this for about 4 weeks off and on.

then what did you think the people here could help you with?

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette || http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com

What I say is that, if a fellow really likes potatoes, he must be a
pretty decent sort of fellow.
-- A.A. Milne