A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dog health
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Raw food for pets?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 16th 09, 03:34 PM posted to rec.pets.dogs.health
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Raw food for pets?


On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:51:05 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:48:42 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:23:31 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
unless chardonnay9 is actually right
about you.
You know what?

You're on your own now.

There was no need to pull that one out and
prance it around.

Argue with her all you want as far as I'm
concerned. I know I pull her out of the bozo
bin to knock around from time to time.

But to lend credibility to all the supremely
nasty things she's said simply because you
didn't like a snark? Whatever....
Thanks, but I've been on my own for quite some time, and I prefer to
make my own way. I'm flattered you think I could in some way lend
credibility to what chardonnay9 says here, but at the same time, I'm
sure that you must realize how silly that sounds. Chardonnay9 speaks
for herself, as do I, and as do you.
If it "sounds silly" then why would you even
bring up someone else's opinion of another
poster. That contradiction is pretty glaring.


Why I do or don't do something should be of no interest to you. At
least I can't imagine why it should.

When you say something, and people read it,
they are likely to form opinions, make
assessments, or even simply question (in much
the same way you yourself do) when someone
comes up with something so incredibly
hypocritical.

Sort of the way you did with other people's
posts just today in fact.

Can't imagine why their posts would have been
of any interest to you either, and yet you
replied.


I replied, but please notice that I haven't tried to tell anyone who
they should reply to, how they should reply, etc., or that you should
care about what I think about you. Because you shouldn't. I can't
stop people from forming opinions, but just because one is free to
form one doesn't mean that it's always necessary to express it,
especially here, and particularly if it doesn't add anything positive
to a discussion.

Or are we playing the feigning a lack of
interest and being above it all now? How
goofy. Especially starting it so soon after
you responded to a few snarks from others.


I have no interest in what makes you tick. That's between you and your
therapist. And I care nothing about your opinions, yet you appear to
be rather incapable of preventing yourself from expressing them,
especially to me. Why not express them to those who might actually be
interested in hearing them? If they are actually worthy of
consideration, you should have no trouble finding willing listeners.

While your overall answer sounds good, that
basic inconsistency renders your post pretty
disingenuous at best.


Your opinion of my posts means nothing to me.


That makes no difference in whether or not I
will choose to state it.


Of course, but please have no pretense that I care what they are.

That's life in usenet....and its just grand.


Not exactly. A lot of it, maybe most of it, is utter nonsense,
perpetuated by people who feel it's their duty to get everyone
marching in lockstep. For example, telling people who they can reply
to, harassing the rebellious, and singling out certain individuals for
abuse. This newsgroup is a perfect example of it.

And I can't imagine why
you would think it would.


I can't imagine why someone with so little
interest would even take the time tp type all
about how little interest they have.

Must be thet "I'm going to be above it all
and tell everyone how much I don't care"

Seriously....you're being ruder to me (who
wasn't actually snarking on you) than you are
to Chard who has ripped you an asshole.

Interesting choice.


Chardonnay9 has done no such thing to me. She called me a puppet.
That doesn't bother me at all. On the other hand, you've done pretty
much exactly what you've accused chardonnay9 of doing, and for no
apparent reason. Yes, for some reason or reasons still unknown to me,
you think you're qualified to critique my posts, warn me about
chardonnay9's dangerous ideas, think I should care about your
opinions, and are apparently overly concerned about why I may or may
not do something here. Your strategy, much like chardonnay9's, is
seriously flawed, if it is actually intended to influence others in a
positive way. Maybe it's time to rethink your technique?
  #2  
Old June 16th 09, 09:16 PM posted to rec.pets.dogs.health
Paul E. Schoen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,654
Default Raw food for pets?


wrote in message
...

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:51:05 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

Can't imagine why their posts would have been
of any interest to you either, and yet you
replied.


I replied, but please notice that I haven't tried to tell anyone who
they should reply to, how they should reply, etc., or that you should
care about what I think about you. Because you shouldn't. I can't
stop people from forming opinions, but just because one is free to
form one doesn't mean that it's always necessary to express it,
especially here, and particularly if it doesn't add anything positive
to a discussion.


You are spot on there. Lots of people here are seething with prejudice and
malice, and they cannot engage in a rational discussion without resorting
to childish accusations and profanity. Then they try using their killfiles
as a weapon, although it only results in their own disconnection from
information, while they wish they could keep the poster from presenting
ideas to others whom they wish to "protect" with their own selective
censorship.


Or are we playing the feigning a lack of
interest and being above it all now? How
goofy. Especially starting it so soon after
you responded to a few snarks from others.


I have no interest in what makes you tick. That's between you and your
therapist. And I care nothing about your opinions, yet you appear to
be rather incapable of preventing yourself from expressing them,
especially to me. Why not express them to those who might actually be
interested in hearing them? If they are actually worthy of
consideration, you should have no trouble finding willing listeners.


This silly exchange was actually started by Kathleen, who posted something
very inappropriate and distasteful in response to a simple quip. Then
Melinda ironically whined about you "telling other people what their
priorities should be". Then Tara started babbling...


That's life in usenet....and its just grand.


Not exactly. A lot of it, maybe most of it, is utter nonsense,
perpetuated by people who feel it's their duty to get everyone
marching in lockstep. For example, telling people who they can reply
to, harassing the rebellious, and singling out certain individuals for
abuse. This newsgroup is a perfect example of it.


Amen to that. I have just tried to correct misconceptions and present the
facts, and engage in meaningful discussion. I have refused to bow to the
wishes of "the regulars" to agree to their particular dogma, and their
unwillingness to discuss what they may disagree with indicates their own
narrow-minded prejudice.


Must be thet "I'm going to be above it all
and tell everyone how much I don't care"

Seriously....you're being ruder to me (who
wasn't actually snarking on you) than you are
to Chard who has ripped you an asshole.

Interesting choice.


Chardonnay9 has done no such thing to me. She called me a puppet.
That doesn't bother me at all. On the other hand, you've done pretty
much exactly what you've accused chardonnay9 of doing, and for no
apparent reason. Yes, for some reason or reasons still unknown to me,
you think you're qualified to critique my posts, warn me about
chardonnay9's dangerous ideas, think I should care about your
opinions, and are apparently overly concerned about why I may or may
not do something here. Your strategy, much like chardonnay9's, is
seriously flawed, if it is actually intended to influence others in a
positive way. Maybe it's time to rethink your technique?


Well said. No one has a monopoly on the truth, although many believe they
do. A closed mind is rather useless in an environment that is changing and
where new ideas need to be processed and considered in a logical manner
against traditionally accepted ones which may or may not still have merit.
Anyone who chooses to play on usenet must take responsibility to filter out
the meaningful content from the noise, and do research and even take the
risk of personal experimentation to determine what is useful and safe. That
is the price of a free and uncensored forum.

Paul and Muttley


  #3  
Old June 16th 09, 11:57 PM posted to rec.pets.dogs.health
Tara Green
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 711
Default Raw food for pets?

wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:51:05 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:48:42 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:23:31 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
unless chardonnay9 is actually right
about you.
You know what?

You're on your own now.

There was no need to pull that one out and
prance it around.

Argue with her all you want as far as I'm
concerned. I know I pull her out of the bozo
bin to knock around from time to time.

But to lend credibility to all the supremely
nasty things she's said simply because you
didn't like a snark? Whatever....
Thanks, but I've been on my own for quite some time, and I prefer to
make my own way. I'm flattered you think I could in some way lend
credibility to what chardonnay9 says here, but at the same time, I'm
sure that you must realize how silly that sounds. Chardonnay9 speaks
for herself, as do I, and as do you.
If it "sounds silly" then why would you even
bring up someone else's opinion of another
poster. That contradiction is pretty glaring.
Why I do or don't do something should be of no interest to you. At
least I can't imagine why it should.

When you say something, and people read it,
they are likely to form opinions, make
assessments, or even simply question (in much
the same way you yourself do) when someone
comes up with something so incredibly
hypocritical.

Sort of the way you did with other people's
posts just today in fact.

Can't imagine why their posts would have been
of any interest to you either, and yet you
replied.


I replied, but please notice that I haven't tried to tell anyone who
they should reply to, how they should reply, etc.,


That sounds GREAT. Too bad you show just how
untrue that is in this very post (and not for
the first time)

or that you should
care about what I think about you. Because you shouldn't. I can't
stop people from forming opinions, but just because one is free to
form one doesn't mean that it's always necessary to express it,
especially here, and particularly if it doesn't add anything positive
to a discussion.


Like this post I'm replying to? Or did you
only mean mine? Because we're pretty much
doing the same thing in this exchange, but
only one of us is pretending not to be.

Or are we playing the feigning a lack of
interest and being above it all now? How
goofy. Especially starting it so soon after
you responded to a few snarks from others.


I have no interest in what makes you tick. That's between you and your
therapist.



How great! You cared enough to go for the low
blow personal and snide comment!

Very special!

And I care nothing about your opinions, yet you appear to
be rather incapable of preventing yourself from expressing them,


Wait, you mean like this post from you? Or
are we only insulting me and my choices,
while yours are stellar?

I'm really trying to follow, but the irony is
weighing me down at the moment.

especially to me. Why not express them to those who might actually be
interested in hearing them? If they are actually worthy of
consideration, you should have no trouble finding willing listeners.

While your overall answer sounds good, that
basic inconsistency renders your post pretty
disingenuous at best.
Your opinion of my posts means nothing to me.

That makes no difference in whether or not I
will choose to state it.


Of course, but please have no pretense that I care what they are.


Why would you think that your caring is
relevant at all?

That's life in usenet....and its just grand.


Not exactly. A lot of it, maybe most of it, is utter nonsense,
perpetuated by people who feel it's their duty to get everyone
marching in lockstep. For example, telling people who they can reply
to, harassing the rebellious, and singling out certain individuals for
abuse. This newsgroup is a perfect example of it.


Ah. great drama.

This newsgroup has some of that. Sure.

And you yourself display some of that same
stuff when it suits you as well.

There is also a lot of great information here
as well as valuable help, just as I'm sure
you're capable of sharing as well.

No one really fits into a box. No one I know
of in this group does, and I'm assuming
neither do you.

But what a fun way of trying to hold up rpdh
as exemplifying the very worst of usenet!

And I can't imagine why
you would think it would.

I can't imagine why someone with so little
interest would even take the time tp type all
about how little interest they have.

Must be thet "I'm going to be above it all
and tell everyone how much I don't care"

Seriously....you're being ruder to me (who
wasn't actually snarking on you) than you are
to Chard who has ripped you an asshole.

Interesting choice.


Chardonnay9 has done no such thing to me. She called me a puppet.
That doesn't bother me at all. On the other hand, you've done pretty
much exactly what you've accused chardonnay9 of doing,


To you? Before or after your passive
aggressive snarks?

Prior to your own shaded entries, I did no
such thing. And even now, I have not made a
personally snide comment about anything other
than your own words and actions *in this
group*. Your life offline (real or imagined,
though I wouldn't really imagine anything
about you)is not something I would ever get
snide about....and yet you're comfortable
going there. So be it.

But feel free to provide a cite, and if true,
I'd be happy to make amends. Otherwise, I'm
not all that interested in your vague
accusations.

and for no
apparent reason. Yes, for some reason or reasons still unknown to me,
you think you're qualified to critique my posts,


Really?
So, to you pointing out an action is
synonymous with critiquing? No,
wait....that's only when *others* do it.

You point out actions....often in fact. But
when others do it, its not ok.

I think I'm starting to get the rules here.

But really, we all have a different style.
Some are direct. Others are
passive-aggressive. Pretending to not be
doing what you criticize makes you,
what?....just like the rest of us, I guess.
Just another pig in the mud.

warn me about
chardonnay9's dangerous ideas,


I'm curious about when I did that.

Since I don't tend to say things like "Chard
has dangerous ideas" I think you may have
pulled that one out of nowhere.

I do tend to warn people about her dangerous
advice, when she has actually *given*
dangerous advice, though I doubt that would
have come up with you since she wasn't giving
you advice.

Its extremely likely that I pointed out that
you weren't going to be changing the nature
of her advice anytime soon....and that seems
to be panning out nicely as far as I can see.

But warning you about her "dangerous ideas"?
Don't think so.

I'd suggest that you aim for more accuracy,
but while suggestions emanating *from* you
are fine, the ones headed towards you seem to
trigger accusations of being "overly
concerned" or "critiquing", so I'll just
point out that you're being incredibly
inaccurate here.

think I should care about your
opinions,


Nope. I think no such thing.

People post. Usenet is not a medium for
personal and private conversations. Each post
reaches a wide array of folks. Just because
your post was what is being responded to
doesn't make you or your level of concern
critical....or even a factor.

and are apparently overly concerned about why I may or may
not do something here.


There's that "overly concerned". How cute.

You could disrobe and dance around naked in
front of your neighbors singing LL Cool J
songs and it wouldn't register on my radar.

Try not to confuse a reply to you with
actually caring a lot about what you do.

Oh, there's that evil suggestion thing again.

Your strategy, much like chardonnay9's, is
seriously flawed, if it is actually intended to influence others in a
positive way.


I'm not trying to influence you at all.

Did you think I was?

A suggestion or comment is merely that. They
can fall flat, be appreciated, or left alone
to gather dust. The result makes no
difference. I think its interesting that you
equate typing a post with all this concern
over your thoughts and level of care.

Maybe it's time to rethink your technique?


Heyyyyyy! Didn't you start this very post
with the reason your posts were so above all
others is because you never do this sort of
thing?

I'm so disappointed in you. I was about to
crown you the new queen of positive usenet posts.
  #4  
Old June 17th 09, 12:11 AM posted to rec.pets.dogs.health
Paul E. Schoen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,654
Default Raw food for pets?


"Tara Green" wrote in message
...
wrote:

[snip 11 kB of babble]

Wow, competing with TPW aka JH for long posts?

Nothing better to do? How sad for your neglected pooches...

Paul and Muttley


  #5  
Old June 17th 09, 12:35 AM posted to rec.pets.dogs.health
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Raw food for pets?

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:57:59 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

I'm so disappointed in you.


And I you. Too much prattle.


  #8  
Old June 17th 09, 01:41 AM posted to rec.pets.dogs.health
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Raw food for pets?

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:37:42 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:57:59 -0400, Tara Green
wrote:

I'm so disappointed in you.


And I you. Too much prattle.



And the critiques just keep coming and coming....

not that you ever do that, of course.


I'll make you a deal. If you'll stop critiquing my behavior, I'll stop
critiquing yours, thereby saving everyone the agony of downloading
such meaningless twaddle. Let's both try to stick to having civil
discussions or debates, hopefully having to do with dogs, which is,
after all, this group's raison d'etre. Of course, you don't have to
accept the deal, but I'm not going to reciprocate if you don't. I'll
just ignore you from now on. I hope you will accept the deal, because
I think we both have something to contribute here. Anyway, it's up to
you.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Raw food for pets? chardonnay9 Dog health 0 April 2nd 09 12:20 AM
"Food Pets Die For: Shocking Facts About Pet Food." chardonnay9 Dog health 7 December 16th 08 08:12 PM
Healthy Food For Our Pets [email protected] Dog behavior 1 February 4th 08 10:45 PM
Healthy Food For Our Pets [email protected] Dog health 0 February 4th 08 10:19 PM
news for pets food Aaron111 Dog health 0 March 28th 07 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unauthorized Upgrade)
Copyright ©2004-2024 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.