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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Raw food for pets?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Raw food for pets?
"Tara Green" wrote in message ... 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. Having fun playing verbal ping-pong? P&M |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Raw food for pets?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Raw food for pets?
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:15:43 -0400, sighthounds & siberians
wrote: On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:41:17 -0400, wrote: 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. How about if everybody stops cluttering up the health group? We try to keep this one free of crap so that legitimate questions/problems don't get lost in the noise. Count me in. Not only here, but for the other dog groups, too. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |