Enter, Laugh, Integrate, Talk, Enjoy.

3Dogs

auto.armadillo wrote: »

bakers are purina too I've checked a few other brand and dog biscuits too and the brands I looked at don't list as an ingredient and I wholeheartedly agree EU regs are way stricter than the USAs but I love my dogs and could not live with myself if anything untoward happened cos of food that I knew contained a poison xxx

Oh I agree wholeheartedly with you auto.armadillo, better safe than sorry, especially where our dearest animals are concerned

bubbs

24 Diet Coke @ Tesco Express. £4.50 / 18.75p each.
http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/24-diet-coke-tesco-express-4-50-18-75p-each-2161486

tweets

Nannylala wrote: »

Tweets I remember DD Lala was very fond of HC and always getting him out of trouble bless him :rotfl::rotfl:

She was he was very and I remember lala always telling him to change his bedding. Did you see those shoes he posted on EBay ? :eek: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I remember him posting when I started the thread under an AE we had a laugh for a couple days then he went too far and got banned yet again :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I am sat here laughing now

JulieElizabeth

tweets wrote: »

I always think of HC when I change my bedding and sometimes when I am on the bus

best and warmest wishes to you HC, wherever you are

3Dogs

Another bit of information about PG in pet food - totally banned in cat food:

http://truthaboutpetfood.com/pet-food-and-treat-ingredient-propylene-glycol/

Bananababe

tweets wrote: »

She was he was very and I remember lala always telling him to change his bedding. Did you see those shoes he posted on EBay ? :eek: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I remember him posting when I started the thread under an AE we had a laugh for a couple days then he went too far and got banned yet again :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I am sat here laughing now

Oh the shoes :eek::eek:

We watched them as close as ruths comp xx

auto.armadillo

trubster wrote: »

I am sorry but your post is TOSH!!!

Propylene Glycol is not anti freeze, it is one of many parts in it.

PG is found in all e cigarette liquid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol

Animals
Propylene glycol is an approved food additive for dog food under the category of animal feed and is generally recognized as safe for dogs,[39] with an LD50 of 9 mL/kg. The LD50 is higher for most laboratory animals (20 mL/kg).[40] However, it is prohibited for use in food for cats due to links to Heinz body anemia.[41]

you don't sound sorry lol you sound smug I am well aware of the ins and outs of this issue and I didn't really bore ppl with all the !!!!! you wrote and propylene glycol is the ingredient in antifreeze that kills animals AND humans and that would depend on how much you ingest and again it does kill and I will not be subjecting my dogs to any of the potential side effects or death xxx

Savvybuyer

redfox wrote: »

the problem was links in signatures, not the links on posts in the thread. Your signature contained links which is in breach of the forum rule on signatures.

The rule I quoted was purely relating to signature links and as such was perfectly correctly applied in that situation.

Yes it was, although some would say completely pedantic and technical. I assume you've never driven at 1 mph over the speed limit ever?

Furthermore the link was aimed at making it easier for people to find something, on the thread itself, that might save them money! I wasn't going to get into this; however you've raised the issue. I note that the forum rules also say that "Of course, our aim is to ensure legitimate information about saving money or fighting for consumer rights stays." Therefore, if that was really the aim as claimed, then the spirit of that ought to trump the technicality of the rule on signatures. However, I assume that, as it's found in breach of the signatures rule, it's therefore classed as illegitimate information and that one therefore prevents that from being argued. Even though it's counter to the aim of enabling people to save money more easily!

However, I notice that the issue was not originally directed towards myself and I think that that was an acknowledgement and reflection of the fact that my infraction was innocent and I hadn't even thought about the issue of links in signatures. The matter hadn't even occurred to me, but I shan't be breaching this rule again! Yes, it was in breach so, therefore, I am sorry. Thanks for your guidance.

trubster wrote: »

Sorry Savvy. I wasn't aware of this rule. It is pathetic IMO, its a link to a MSE Forum post. It's not like you have a HUKD Link in your sig saying it is better than MSE

Nothing stopping it being put at the end of every post we make, just as long as it isnt in the signature

You can take it, from my above comments, that I agree somewhat with that. Indeed, it seems I could simply post the very same thing, repeatedly in every post I make, as long as it isn't in the signature. It seems to me no real difference at all (it could simply appear immediately above the signature line rather than below it) and to all practical purposes it is very same thing and the rule rendered useless by being so easily circumvented in that way! I must admit, slightly, I do find it a bit tempting to keep posting the very same thing in the body of every post from now on in (a bit like trying to stop a newspaper from publishing something so that they then publish and publish and publish even more about how they cannot publish the very thing and lay as many clues as possible in order to keep the story running and running) - in a way, I'd feel drawn to posting the link again and again in the body of all of my future posts - it almost feels a bit subversive, also given the captivation of the taboo nature of it being in the actual signature, and almost as if I'm doing it in some form of protest or something - it would make me feel a bit but, much as I feel drawn towards something (that doesn't come to breaching the rule anymore) as a form of protest, I will refrain.

That's you and me told trubster!

bubbs

trubster wrote: »

Yep, make my own liquids so actually know what PG is, rather than the Daily Fail saying it is Antifreeze........

The amounts saved as demonstrated in my "Would be signature" is eyewatering - Nearly 4000 in 400 days. It paid for a lovely holiday to Sharm in Jan for the family.

:T:T:T well done, do you take the money out every week/ month?

Bananababe

3Dogs wrote: »

Oh I agree wholeheartedly with you auto.armadillo, better safe than sorry, especially where our dearest animals are concerned

I knew there was a reason not to feed dog food to cats. Why on earth does they put weird stuff in anyway like ash etc xx