Jackie L.

It becomes noticeable that there is a war going on between the 'regulars' and most other men and women; people they disagree with them. It also becomes noticeable that the 'regulars' are allowed to violate the web site's rules, the rules of discuss and act racist while other people get banned permanently without any good reasons. The name-calling by the 'regulars' include 'ignorant person', 'misguided hippie' (which is racism), 'spoiled brat-dog should get a new home', just to name a few from yesterday and today. Then Mike defends the 'regulars' and claims others would be the 'cyber stalkers', 'fraudulent posters with intend to deceive', or 'people with fake or deceptive identities' etc. using very strong words legally questionable while Pattyvaugh among Hounddog, Shawna, Betsy Greer, LabsRaw, Iosol and a couple of followers are doing exactly that and it is noticeable on every thread.

There is no doubt in my mind to conclude that these strong words by the editor are inaccurate. It becomes easily understood that all he does is defending his groupies and exaggerate other people's conduct. I conclude without a doubt that eater he intentionally misrepresents and act fraudulently or it is possible that people do post with an alternative identity, not 'a fraudulent identity with intend to deceive' simply because they have been banned from the site and tried to speak their minds. This is completely different having an alternative ID from a fraudulent ID and it is not illegal. In fact most of his regulars have admitted not using their real names.

The past seven days I have witnessed the editor to eliminate at least eight posts that were permitted but questioned the editor's diet choices. I have followed the site for a while and hope someone will file a lawsuit against them for all the bullying and mistreatment so many innocent people have received. Also his information he provides states in violation with the FTC. He constructs many false claims and a disclaimer won't protect him. He is not allowed to claim, for instance, he provides unbiased information while he does and his entire site and rating system is based on biased claims. Then he is not allowed to fraudulently misrepresent posts making it sound like everyone agrees with him by having all the critical posts deleted on some threads using questionable claims and methods. He is also not allowed to promote certain diets without a warning, while the diets often make dogs sick. He misguides the reader for giving some brands 5 stars who had lots of recalls and killed dogs or frequently make them sick. Other dog foods he claims they are bad because of peas without providing scientific evidence. He also misrepresents frequently scientific evidence in order to promote his plan of a certain diet that is very high in protein and very high in meat content. He simultaneously claims it is 'just his opinion' and admits he is a dentist yet his white doctor coat is very misleading falsely presenting him a 'doctor in the field'.