LindsaySF wrote:cheekymunkee wrote:WHy is it an attack when we are talking about what YOU feed but not when we are talking about what WE feed.?
You can debate over the Kirkland's all you want. I welcome it in fact. I would like to see information about it.
But when it suddenly becomes "well I wouldn't have that many dogs if I had to feed them crap like you are", and then insinuating that we wouldn't provide vet care if needed, THAT is an attack...
~Lindsay~
LindsaySF wrote:cheekymunkee wrote:Well *gasp* neither are OURS!!!!! Moot point indeed.
But here's the difference, WE never said your animals were suffering.
We pointed out risks associated with raw diets, provided links to them, etc. At no point did we say you guys were killing your dogs and they would be better off if you didn't have them.
See the difference?
~Lindsay~
cheekymunkee wrote:WE never said that either........don't put words in mouths. Show me....word for word...exactly where that was said. Not what YOU think was said, what was said.
cheekymunkee wrote:Nope, sorry. I refuse to have more animals than I can afford to feed a healthy diet to. If it means I can only have one dog in order to feed it the best food possible, then I only have one dog.
cheekymunkee wrote:Like I already said, if I cannot afford to feed my dogs a good diet I do not need to have them. Feeding crap just so I can have more animas is not acceptable to me. Same thing with kids, if I cannot afford them I refuse to have them, that is why I only have 1. Well, that isn't the ONLT reason but it is one of the major ones.
cheekymunkee wrote:That's what I am saying. What if your dogs get sick? if you can't feed them decent food how can you take them to the vet?
SisMorphine wrote:I guess when I do things I make sure they are done right. I don't believe in pulling a dog from a shelter and having it eat crap and just sit around while being fostered. I believe in feeding that dog the highest quality kibble and making sure that dog has a buttload of training and socialization because that is the real responsibility of a foster home . . . not just to be a space away from a shelter.
Show me....word for word...exactly where that was said. Not what YOU think was said, what was said.
We pointed out risks associated with raw diets, provided links to them, etc. At no point did we say you guys were killing your dogs and they would be better off if you didn't have them.
hoagiesmomma wrote:*stirring the pot*
sooo...
I've been thinking about going raw.
anyone know of any reason I shouldn't?
cheekymunkee wrote:
Give me back that spoon young lady!
hoagiesmomma wrote:*stirring the pot*
sooo...
I've been thinking about going raw.
anyone know of any reason I shouldn't?
SisMorphine wrote:Trouble
hoagiesmomma wrote:SisMorphine wrote:Trouble
would you have expected anything less???
cheekymunkee wrote:you forgot....... no post is complete without it!
cheekymunkee wrote:Ok, that wsa mean, I apolgoze for THAT.
This thread was educational and civil until msvette2u and I were jumped on. I'm done with it now. It's been fun. Ciao.
cheekymunkee wrote:I know...I know. It is a rare thing. I'm usually buttercups & butterflies.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]