Quote:
Originally Posted by dottiesyrky  I am sorry but I was questioning the comments not YOU. I apologize if I offended you. I think on a general forum like this the posts should be written such that the average person could understand. If you are suggesting that I am unable to understand simple English and concepts, then I would be offended. I can understand well scientific papers in my field but the jargon used in other fields is not obvious to me as I do not know all the specialized terms. |
And I'm sorry I was a little testy with you. I'm used to writing scientific papers, and I'm horrible at writing for a general audience. And when I quote articles as much as I do, I should explain what the quotes mean. If you have any questions, just ask. And I really did mean it when I said that the article was good about stating that some dog foods contain ingredients that are not on the list, and that could be bad for dogs with allergies. The original post by Wylie's Mom was basically correct--Becker did a pretty good job of analyzing the article. I was just wondering why Hill's was on the list, since they are supposed to have pretty good quality control. I was just saying that Hill's may not be as bad as the article is leading people to believe.