On 3/22/06 1:00 AM, Sukie wrote:
 
>"a" Dr. Kawasaki "apparently"  ??????????...
>Nor was his talk "apparently" given.  It was given and it qualified for
>continuing education credits for the attending veterinarians, though the
>official topic was eyes and hearts.  The IFC symposia are very important
>venues for ferret information...
 
Apparently, as in I was told about this.  I guess you jump to the
absolutely worst interpretation due to your own extreme dislike of me.
Instead of looking at what I wrote, you want to belittle me.
 
>Bottom line: I trust his level of work, and I trust the people who have
>mentioned it.  Besides, in my files I have a note from him from 2004
>which was kindly forwarded to me by Danee speaking about those ferrets.
>One even had "a blood urea nitrogen over 300".
 
I never said I didn't trust him.  In fact, I have just repeatedly pointed
out it is a very small portion of the community, too small for me to base
an opinion on.
 
In fact, what I have been saying is I don't trust what YOU said.
 
You said raisins are toxic.  Without any sources etc, And you stated it
as a given.  It isn't.
 
>The ASPCA write-up is old.
 
Oh, I am sorry.  Didn't realize information from 2004 was too old for
you.
 
>I have been informed by someone who had to call one of them (but I don't
>know if it was Angell or ASPCA) that when people call at least one of
>the poison control centers they are currently advised to use the same
>sorts of kidney cautions about large numbers of raisins or grapes with
>ferrets and cats as are used for dogs.
 
OK, in other words you have apparently been told this by someone else.
So your information is at the very best, secondary and it sounds more
like tertiary information.  And again without really being specific as
to the source.
 
>So when he says that kidney damage can occur in ferrets who have a large
>number of raisins and grapes at one time he is one of the people whose
>expert advice I am personally very willing to accept.
 
Sukie, again, even now you are saying can occur.  That is a far cry from
when you were saying would occur.  And again, that was my point.
 
There is a huge chasm between will and can.  Huge.  And if you are trying
to pass on information to others as a service to this community, then you
had best be correct in what you are passing on.
 
That is what bothers me in the first place, the fact that you passed
something along as fact, never provided anything to back up what you
said and are now changing your own statements on the subject.
 
>Do NOT assume that careful work has not been done simply because you
>don't know enough (or anything) about the investigating vet.  That is
>an entirely unfair assumption to make about someone.  Assuming the
>worst automatically about anyone is not a kind nor valid approach, and
>automatically assuming the worst is entirely out of place and sounds
>downright petty ...
 
See my opening words about your own interpretation of what I wrote.  I
have seen you many many times be hateful to someone who disagrees with
you, and then you pass it off to being ill.  It is a pattern I have seen
for a decade Now.
[Posted in FML issue 5190]