The Complete Guide To Your Dog's Nutrition ©
Jennifer
dog receives the healthiest food & nutrition possible.
Don’t you owe it to your dog to find out?
Click Here To Start Improving Your Dog's Health Today!
Tara Green
> Details to help you decide for yourself what you can do to ensure your
> dog receives the healthiest food & nutrition possible.
>
> Click Here To Start Improving Your Dog's Health Today!
>
> http://www.dogfooddangers.com/index4.php
Holy crap.
Spammers that use bad grammar, and who try
every trick in the book in an attempt to
prevent you from navigating away from the
page are exactly who I most trust to do
business with....
(no, not really)
Char
> Jennifer wrote:
>> Details to help you decide for yourself what you can do to ensure your
>> dog receives the healthiest food & nutrition possible.
>>
>> Click Here To Start Improving Your Dog's Health Today!
>>
>> http://www.dogfooddangers.com/index4.php
>
> Holy crap.
>
> Spammers that use bad grammar, and who try every trick in the book in an
> attempt to prevent you from navigating away from the page are exactly
> who I most trust to do business with....
>
> (no, not really)
At least she has a job! LOL!
Tara Green
> Tara Green wrote:
>> Jennifer wrote:
>>> Details to help you decide for yourself what you can do to ensure your
>>> dog receives the healthiest food & nutrition possible.
>>>
>>> Click Here To Start Improving Your Dog's Health Today!
>>>
>>> http://www.dogfooddangers.com/index4.php
>>
>> Holy crap.
>>
>> Spammers that use bad grammar, and who try every trick in the book in
>> an attempt to prevent you from navigating away from the page are
>> exactly who I most trust to do business with....
>>
>> (no, not really)
>
> At least she has a job! LOL!
>
Funny. I have two jobs at present.
How 'nout you, char?
You off those addictive pain killers yet?
Char
> Char wrote:
>> Tara Green wrote:
>>> Jennifer wrote:
>>>> Details to help you decide for yourself what you can do to ensure your
>>>> dog receives the healthiest food & nutrition possible.
>>>>
>>>> Click Here To Start Improving Your Dog's Health Today!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dogfooddangers.com/index4.php
>>>
>>> Holy crap.
>>>
>>> Spammers that use bad grammar, and who try every trick in the book in
>>> an attempt to prevent you from navigating away from the page are
>>> exactly who I most trust to do business with....
>>>
>>> (no, not really)
>>
>> At least she has a job! LOL!
>>
>
> Funny. I have two jobs at present.
So you lied in that other group about not having a job? Why would you do
that? Of course, since you responded it means you lied about reading my
posts. Bad habits are hard to break huh?
>
> How 'nout you, char?
I own a business.
>
> You off those addictive pain killers yet?
Why? Are you jealous?
dejablues
"Char" <chard...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:P9SdnZJ6-ZjUGlPX...@earthlink.com...
> Tara Green wrote:
>> Jennifer wrote:
>>> Details to help you decide for yourself what you can do to ensure your
>>> dog receives the healthiest food & nutrition possible.
>>> Don�t you owe it to your dog to find out?
>>>
>>> Click Here To Start Improving Your Dog's Health Today!
>>>
>>> http://www.dogfooddangers.com/index4.php
>>
>> Holy crap.
>>
>> Spammers that use bad grammar, and who try every trick in the book in an
>> attempt to prevent you from navigating away from the page are exactly who
>> I most trust to do business with....
>>
>> (no, not really)
>
> At least she has a job! LOL
Oh yeah. "She" has a job? Spambots are not real.
Tara Green
> Tara Green wrote:
>> Char wrote:
>>> Tara Green wrote:
>>>> Jennifer wrote:
>>>>> Details to help you decide for yourself what you can do to ensure your
>>>>> dog receives the healthiest food & nutrition possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Click Here To Start Improving Your Dog's Health Today!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dogfooddangers.com/index4.php
>>>>
>>>> Holy crap.
>>>>
>>>> Spammers that use bad grammar, and who try every trick in the book
>>>> in an attempt to prevent you from navigating away from the page are
>>>> exactly who I most trust to do business with....
>>>>
>>>> (no, not really)
>>>
>>> At least she has a job! LOL!
>>>
>>
>> Funny. I have two jobs at present.
>
> So you lied in that other group about not having a job?
Try reading for more than simple ammunition
and you might actually start comprehending.
I'm keeping an eye out for a new job in a
field I'm just starting out in.
I still have the two businesses that I run.
> Why would you do
> that? Of course, since you responded it means you lied about reading my
> posts. Bad habits are hard to break huh?
Why? Because I forgot to extend my killfile
for you into this obscure newsgroup?
Hardly a lie. Lies are your specialty
>>
>> How 'nout you, char?
>
> I own a business.
And I own two of them. BFD.
>>
>> You off those addictive pain killers yet?
>
> Why? Are you jealous?
Not even a little. But its good to get a
pulse on someone prone to addiction based
outbursts and breaks with reality. So now I
know you're still hip deep into it. Makes it
easy when I know not to bother trying to
reason with an active drug addict.
Char
> Char wrote:
>> Tara Green wrote:
>>> Char wrote:
>>>> Tara Green wrote:
>>>>> Jennifer wrote:
>>>>>> Details to help you decide for yourself what you can do to ensure
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> dog receives the healthiest food & nutrition possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Click Here To Start Improving Your Dog's Health Today!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.dogfooddangers.com/index4.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Holy crap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spammers that use bad grammar, and who try every trick in the book
>>>>> in an attempt to prevent you from navigating away from the page are
>>>>> exactly who I most trust to do business with....
>>>>>
>>>>> (no, not really)
>>>>
>>>> At least she has a job! LOL!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Funny. I have two jobs at present.
>>
>> So you lied in that other group about not having a job?
>
>
> Try reading for more than simple ammunition and you might actually start
> comprehending.
>
> I'm keeping an eye out for a new job in a field I'm just starting out in.
>
> I still have the two businesses that I run.
>
>> Why would you do that? Of course, since you responded it means you
>> lied about reading my posts. Bad habits are hard to break huh?
>
> Why? Because I forgot to extend my killfile for you into this obscure
> newsgroup?
>
> Hardly a lie. Lies are your specialty
>
>
>>>
>>> How 'nout you, char?
>>
>> I own a business.
>
> And I own two of them. BFD.
If you don't want to know why ask?
>
>>>
>>> You off those addictive pain killers yet?
>>
>> Why? Are you jealous?
>
> Not even a little. But its good to get a pulse on someone prone to
> addiction based outbursts and breaks with reality. So now I know you're
> still hip deep into it. Makes it easy when I know not to bother trying
> to reason with an active drug addict.
What hurts you so bad I guess is that I'm just not an addict. I used it
when it was needed, reduced use when other means were found
(chiropractor, massage) and stopped it altogether with no withdrawals at
all. They aren't addictive to everyone Tara, just to addicts and I'm not
one.
I would have thought that you of all people, who is an addict, would
know better than to go that route but I guess in your head you are still
that addict and you can't help what you say. You want so bad for me to
be an addict too, even to the point where you imagine "breaks with
reality" you poor girl.
Being a fellow raw feeder it just points out your real mission here and
that is to disrupt, cause as much trouble as possible and to hide why
you do raw feed. However, having found you posting on a few Yahoo groups
in a very different manner lets me know what you can be, especially
since those groups are moderated. It's a shame you can't be as civil
here but I understand. Every addict needs someplace to explode so they
can let loose steam otherwise pointed at their family and friends.
Who knows what is true and what is a lie with you Tara. Regardless,
since you've posted on those groups in direct opposition to what you say
here we know you do lie frequently and which version is truth really
doesn't matter. You will never be well until you figure out for yourself
why you feel the need to lie and trash people.
Tara Green
> Tara Green wrote:
>> Char wrote:
>>> Tara Green wrote:
>>>> Char wrote:
>>>>> Tara Green wrote:
>>>>>> Jennifer wrote:
>>>>>>> Details to help you decide for yourself what you can do to ensure
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> dog receives the healthiest food & nutrition possible.
Ok. Though your descriptions of your need,
your fuzziness without it, and how you
reacted to it sure did sound a lot like you
had a problem.
Which is not an issue in and of itself at all.
Its the pure hypocrisy of you using drugs
while beating anyone else up for so much as
contemplating easing their own dog's
suffering via modern medicine.
THAT is the sole issue here.
I could care less if you're using pain
killers recreationally, for a single purpose
(which, from your own posts, you *did* have
withdrawal symptoms from, so thanks for lying
yet again. I find it funny when you sacrifice
truth in order to further your agenda), or if
you were laying on a corner with a needle in
your arm: the point remains exactly the same.
You grab onto anything that helps you, while
beating the shit out of others for trying to
help their dogs using the same modern
medicine you glommed onto as soon as you got
"ouchie"
You're full of shit, a liar and a hypocrite
who gives out advice that can kill dogs. The
fact that you abused prescription drugs is
only relevant in that you attack anyone for
so much as giving their dogs antibiotics.
> I would have thought that you of all people, who is an addict, would
> know better than to go that route but I guess in your head you are still
> that addict and you can't help what you say.
Actually No. I don't define myself that way.
You set yourself for that definition when you
present such hypocrisy. You make it too easy.
> You want so bad for me to
> be an addict too, even to the point where you imagine "breaks with
> reality" you poor girl.
Darlin' your reality means bupkis to me. Its
not your addiction that's the issue. its your
hypocrisy. You can't even see how far your
own hypocrisy and willingness to lie extends.
it would be funnier, but for the deadly
advice and attacks you dole out to folks
simply trying to save the health of their pets.
>
> Being a fellow raw feeder it just points out your real mission here and
> that is to disrupt, cause as much trouble as possible and to hide why
> you do raw feed.
I have never once hidden why I raw feed.
And if you were ever to join the raw/holistic
groups I am in (moderated) with your
hypocrisy and attacks, you'd be tossed out on
your crazy ass faster than you could shout
"I'm Char, a paranoid conspiracy theorist who
can't apply critical thought to even the most
basic information!"
So my agenda is for truth, health and balance.
balance being something you have clearly
never even had a glimpse of from the middle
of your nuthouse.
>However, having found you posting on a few
Yahoo groups
> in a very different manner lets me know what you can be, especially
> since those groups are moderated.
No. I've had battles in some of those groups
as well. In the same way.
the difference is that people aren't allowed
to stoop to the same level of mud slinging
you go to regularly, and because I tend to
only join groups that are guided by rational
and critical thought rather than insanity.
If you brought your insanity into those
groups the way you do here, you'd be out on
your ass in 5 seconds flat.
> It's a shame you can't be as civil
> here but I understand.
I was. Towards you. For a long time.
You stopped earning civility a long time ago.
I reverse your own challenge. You wouldn't
get away with your behavior in any of the
groups I'm in without being banned. The thing
is, I have many....MANY civil relationships
here. You don't have any....excpet with the
one person who is banned from every site
known to man.
So really, who'd the one exhibiting issues
with civility? The one who can't get along
with *anyone*, or the one who can't get along
with a handful of people?
I'd say you should have been looking in the
morrow for that entore diatribe.
But I truly dare you to post there the way
you do here. I already have had debates and
real disagreements there.
> Every addict needs someplace to explode so they
> can let loose steam otherwise pointed at their family and friends.
No, actually. Maybe that's just you.
> Who knows what is true and what is a lie with you Tara.
Uh, no.
Unlike you, I post ubder my real name (always
have) and have beenn forthright about who I
am, where I live, and what I do.
The one who keeps herself shrouded in secrecy
is YOU.
And even your short, anonymous posting
history is frought with direct contradictions
and hypocrisy.
So in geberal its starting to look like very
time you want to post an insult or a dig, you
should just go spout off into a
mirror.....you'd be far more accurate in your
finger pointing that way.
> Regardless,
> since you've posted on those groups in direct opposition to what you say
> here
No I haven't.
I have always been very upfront about my path
and my explorations in this area. There are
no contradictions at all.
I love that you've tried to lie about that
already.
It won't be hard at all to see what groups
your doing this in. Step out of line, and
your ass will be hostory. And the best part
is that I won't have to do a THING to make it
happen. You'll self destruct on your own.
> we know you do lie frequently and which version is truth really
> doesn't matter.
Saying something over and over again doesn't
make it true.
Since you're probably taking the word of a
*known* liar anyway, your assertions here
don't mean much. You have provben that you
actually *value* lying. You lie. Your only
"buddy" here lies regularly. You embrace
lying....as long as it promotes your bitter
agenda.
Me? I tend to let it all set where it falls.
That's why I don't post anonymously (which is
your main cloak and shield for your own lies,
by the way). Lying? Not so much.
> You will never be well until you figure out for yourself
> why you feel the need to lie and trash people.
Again....go check the mirror before you go there.
I'm perfectly well.
You? not so much.
(I'll leave araa in just in case anyone there
wants to have a good laugh.)
Tara Green
> Tara Green wrote:
>> Char wrote:
>>> Tara Green wrote:
>>>> Char wrote:
>>>>> Tara Green wrote:
>>>>>> Jennifer wrote:
>>>>>>> Details to help you decide for yourself what you can do to ensure
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> dog receives the healthiest food & nutrition possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Click Here To Start Improving Your Dog's Health Today!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.dogfooddangers.com/index4.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Holy crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spammers that use bad grammar, and who try every trick in the book
>>>>>> in an attempt to prevent you from navigating away from the page
>>>>>> are exactly who I most trust to do business with....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (no, not really)
>>>>>
>>>>> At least she has a job! LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Funny. I have two jobs at present.
>>>
>>> So you lied in that other group about not having a job?
>>
>>
>> Try reading for more than simple ammunition and you might actually
>> start comprehending.
>>
>> I'm keeping an eye out for a new job in a field I'm just starting out in.
>>
>> I still have the two businesses that I run.
>>
>>> Why would you do that? Of course, since you responded it means you
>>> lied about reading my posts. Bad habits are hard to break huh?
>>
>> Why? Because I forgot to extend my killfile for you into this obscure
>> newsgroup?
>>
>> Hardly a lie. Lies are your specialty
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> How 'nout you, char?
>>>
>>> I own a business.
>>
>> And I own two of them. BFD.
>
> If you don't want to know why ask?
Ha ha ha! I missed this the first time since
it was buried in the front.
Only your complete lack of reading for
content leads you to believe I asked any such
thing about your business.
You read them as separate statements. They
were not separate until you separated them.
In other words, once again, you went out of
your way to change a context in order to
misrepresent what someone was saying.
I could care less about your career, nor did
I ever inquire about it.
I was asking if you'd gotten off painkillers
yet, even as you post often telling people
who give their dogs modern medicine that
they're killing them with it.
Char
A huge bunch of crap so I snipped it.
My previous answer still stands, more so than ever. Poor Tara!
Tara Green
I noticed you are listed anonymously oin the
yahoo groups as well.
Looks like I'm not the one with things to hide.
Poor Char.
Char
> Char wrote:
>> Tara Green wrote:
>> A huge bunch of crap so I snipped it.
>>
>> My previous answer still stands, more so than ever. Poor Tara!
>
> I noticed you are listed anonymously oin the yahoo groups as well.
Since you don't know who I am you don't have a clue if I posted
anonymously or not and you don't know which groups I belong to either.
I really bug you for some reason.... poor Tara!
Char
>
> You bug a LOT of people Char. Mostly because of the deadly advice you
> give. If you halted that, you would barely register on anyone's radar.
There has never been any "deadly" advice. I've seen plenty of it from
the others on here though. Pushing pesticides would be a great example.
Not being able to comprehend the damage caused by vaccines is another.
Those flea products kill and maim dogs. The vaccines do too!
The Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed
autoantibodies to their own DNA. They also found that vaccinated dogs
were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. The vaccinated,
but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed
autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin,
laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs -- ”but not the non-vaccinated
dogs”-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in
tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation
between tissues and organs in a living organism.
http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html
Tara, if you didn't lie about me so much you'd have nothing to say.
Char
> << Those flea products kill and maim dogs. The vaccines do too!
>
> chemicals, and I have wanted to ask - seriously - if you have really,
> ever, tried to manage fleas with a flea comb and a vacuum?
I use more than that but nothing even close to being a pesticide. A
vacuum is about the most effective tool in flea eradication. I've also
put a light over some soapy water at night and killed fleas that way. I
use DE or boric acid in the carpets. I give the dogs frequent baths.
> Personally, I cannot be successful in eradicating fleas with this
> approach, and I am skeptical that very many other dog owners can
> either. History has shown this method to be ineffective, which has
> led to other methods eradication of fleas.
Simply raw feeding can reduce the amount of fleas on a dog, as well as
using homeopathic remedies. A healthy dog isn't as much a victim of
fleas, and the reduction in the amount of fleas here tells me raw
feeding has vastly improved their health right in front of my eyes.
So you see, there is more to it than using a comb and a vacuum. There
are many things that help and utilizing as many as possible does make it
possible to eradicate fleas or at the least knock them down to a minor
inconvenience. I see no "flea allergies" since I started raw feeding my
pets.
>
> << The Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed
>> autoantibodies to their own DNA.>>
>
> Please explain this further, since it has been my long held
> understanding that auto-antibodies, or antibodies in general, are
> formed against PROTEINS, and Not DNA.
>
> Linda E. Hungerford, M.D.
The link explains this, just read it.
http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html
It would be silly for me to copy and paste it all here when you can
click on it.
Gus Gassmann
> The Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed
> autoantibodies to their own DNA. They also found that vaccinated dogs
> were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. The vaccinated,
> but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed
> autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin,
> laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
>
> dogs�-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in
> between tissues and organs in a living organism.
>
> http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html
I read one of the studies (the one on Great Danes), and I remain
unconvinced. Even IF (see below) the autoimmune deficiencies could be
detected and linked to the repeated vaccinations, it does not seem to
have any measurable effect on the dogs' life expectancy.
To quote from the study:
"Hypothesis 3: Vaccinated compared with unvaccinated Great Dane dogs
have a significantly higher risk of autoimmune diseases, particularly
hypothyroidism.
We were unable to test this hypothesis ... the long-term potential
adverse consequence of repeated vaccination is likely to remain unknown."
The choice of words in this last sentence is unfortunate, since it
suggests that there *must* be an adverse consequence --- we just haven't
found it yet. But until a study proves the presence of such an adverse
effect, I'd much rather not have to contemplate the prospects of my dog
getting rabies, thank you very much!
Gus Gassmann
> The Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed
> autoantibodies to their own DNA. They also found that vaccinated dogs
> were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. The vaccinated,
> but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed
> autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin,
> laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
>
> between tissues and organs in a living organism.
>
> http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html
I read one of the studies (the one on Great Danes), and I remain
Char
> Char wrote:
>> The Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed
>> autoantibodies to their own DNA. They also found that vaccinated dogs
>> were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. The vaccinated,
>> but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed
>> autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including
>> fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and
>> collagen.
>>
>> between tissues and organs in a living organism.
>>
>> http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html
>
> I read one of the studies (the one on Great Danes), and I remain
> unconvinced. Even IF (see below) the autoimmune deficiencies could be
> detected and linked to the repeated vaccinations, it does not seem to
> have any measurable effect on the dogs' life expectancy.
>
> To quote from the study:
>
> "Hypothesis 3: Vaccinated compared with unvaccinated Great Dane dogs
> have a significantly higher risk of autoimmune diseases, particularly
> hypothyroidism.
>
> We were unable to test this hypothesis ... the long-term potential
> adverse consequence of repeated vaccination is likely to remain unknown."
>
> The choice of words in this last sentence is unfortunate, since it
> suggests that there *must* be an adverse consequence --- we just haven't
> found it yet. But until a study proves the presence of such an adverse
> effect, I'd much rather not have to contemplate the prospects of my dog
> getting rabies, thank you very much!
>
>
You think the vaccine manufacturers will do such a study? LOL! Of course
not! But the good news is that there is a study going on to show that
the vaccines last a lot longer than present thinking.
The problem is that the vets won't admit the adverse reactions are due
to vaccines and don't report them as such.
Most likely your pet would never come in contact with a rabid animal
anyway. Almost every place where legislation was put into place
regarding rabies never had a problem with rabies to begin with.
And stop thinking that vaccines are the only way to get immunity.