@debradownsouth
“You may want to take your lack of serious rescue workings and get more info before you attack someone so stupidly.
Yet, I am the one attacking? I don’t know what your problem with BRAT is but evidently you have one.
“YES, rescues find homes for dogs they cannot adopt, agree to pay for care/food indefinitely. Without you having some telepathic knowledge, a copy of their contract and conversations, you are in no position to attack another member as you have.”
Correct. So perhaps you should check with me first before attacking me about things you do not know.
“You went far from acceptable forum discussion of the issues into vile abuse of the poster. With no proof, just your rancid views.”
Frankly, I could argue this is exactly what you are doing, as others have noted many times. I usually figure you are entitled to your opinion. Rather than attacking you for it.
“The OP is concerned that the things BRAT is demanding is potentially deadly and certainly far from simple NORMAL treatment. From 3 months to no repeating is fairly extreme and certainly worthy of her concern.”
The test she is repeating is the wrong test, read above if she hasn’t deleted it. She has twice exceeded the max dosage of two different drugs, by her own admission she knows better than the vet. Yet you don’t see a problem.
“Her move into an emotional tirade at least is in defence of the dog's health. What, other than getting off on berating a member in pain, are your excuses? Elbrant managed to address issues, albeit harshly at times, without calling the op disgusting, immoral, unethical, etc.”
I don’t need to make excuses to you or anyone else thank you. I am concerned for the poor dog that should have been fostered as per her responsibility. So that he could find a good forever home. Instead of being over fed and overdosed.
“Btw, your laughable continued braying about sawdust... they'd have to sue about 20 companies and sites that point out the same thing... cellulose in dog food is often sawdust.”
I don’t know what is so difficult to understand. She stated “RC satiety is sawdust” the statement is a lie and as such defamation.
“Do I think, if facts are presented accurately, that BRAT has acted in the best interest of the dog? No. But I also know few rescues who would fund a dog that long term. Many would choose to euthanize and use the money on other dogs. Just hard cold logic.”
Perhaps you should have done more research, you would know what the facts are. Especially before attacking me for not knowing them.
“I am not surprised they've washed their hands. I won't be surprised if they euthanize the dog promptly if they don't find a home able to pay his bills to treat him right or willing to go with minimal care. Did her bringing the issue to the forum instead of privately help push them to a final decision? I don't know.”
BRAT were aware there was a problem before the OP brought this to the forum. Contrary to the OP’s original statement, the objective was clearly to defame BRAT.
“But I do know waging personal attacks on someone who is seriously in pain and panic helped no one except maybe your ego.”
Perhaps then your ego feels better now? Freudian slip?
“Now we have a dog who may end up euthanized or undertreated. That should have been the only focus from the start... how to help the dog”
I agree, the focus should be the dog! We have a dog that has been over fed, given several overdoses, given the wrong testing and is anxious / nervous. Before you decide to attack me again, contact BRAT and talk to them, contact other people involved in this case. Do some research and find out more about the OP, find out why the OP no longer has a vet for instance.
